Re: [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
[2013-05-29 11:56:57 +1000] Allan McRae: > 1) Fix any non-official packages with files in /bin, /sbin or /usr/sbin > to put those files in /usr/bin. How should we handle paths that are hardcoded everywhere, such as /usr/sbin/sendmail? Will the filesystem package ship a global symlink from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin? -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
[2013-05-29 11:31:11 +1000] Allan McRae:
> We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1].
>
> Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically
> removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf?
I doubt most of the static libraries our packages ship ever get used, so
I strongly support getting rid of all that dead weight (that's 115M on
my system, for instance). If needed, we can explicitly re-add
options=('staticlibs') to core libraries' PKGBUILD, but that should
really be the exception rather than the rule.
Cheers.
--
Gaetan
[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 15 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 3 fully signed off packages * 30 packages missing signoffs * 2 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (15 total) == * linux-firmware-20130528-1 (any) * keyutils-1.5.5-5 (i686) * libffi-3.0.13-3 (i686) * nfs-utils-1.2.8-6 (i686) * procps-ng-3.3.8-1 (i686) * util-linux-2.23.1-1 (i686) * keyutils-1.5.5-5 (x86_64) * libffi-3.0.13-3 (x86_64) * nfs-utils-1.2.8-6 (x86_64) * procps-ng-3.3.8-1 (x86_64) * util-linux-2.23.1-1 (x86_64) * qemu-1.5.0-1 (i686) * swig-2.0.10-1 (i686) * qemu-1.5.0-1 (x86_64) * swig-2.0.10-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (17 total) == * linux-firmware-20130528-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * netctl-1.1-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * btrfs-progs-0.20rc1.2-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * iptables-1.4.18-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * keyutils-1.5.5-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libffi-3.0.13-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * nfs-utils-1.2.8-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * procps-ng-3.3.8-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rpcbind-0.2.0-12 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * syslinux-5.01-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * util-linux-2.23.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * keyutils-1.5.5-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libffi-3.0.13-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * nfs-utils-1.2.8-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * procps-ng-3.3.8-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rpcbind-0.2.0-12 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * util-linux-2.23.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (13 total) == * devtools-20130525-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gummiboot-31-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * pulseaudio-3.99.2-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qemu-1.5.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * ruby-2.0.0_p195-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * swig-2.0.10-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vim-7.3.1030-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gummiboot-31-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * pulseaudio-3.99.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qemu-1.5.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ruby-2.0.0_p195-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * swig-2.0.10-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vim-7.3.1030-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (3 total) == * btrfs-progs-0.20rc1.2-1 (x86_64) * iptables-1.4.18-2 (x86_64) * syslinux-5.01-4 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * btrfs-progs-0.20rc1.2-1 (i686), since 2013-05-12 * btrfs-progs-0.20rc1.2-1 (x86_64), since 2013-05-12 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
Re: [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
On 29/05/13 17:57, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > [2013-05-29 11:56:57 +1000] Allan McRae: >> 1) Fix any non-official packages with files in /bin, /sbin or /usr/sbin >> to put those files in /usr/bin. > > How should we handle paths that are hardcoded everywhere, such as > /usr/sbin/sendmail? Will the filesystem package ship a global symlink > from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin? > Yes - /sbin, /usr/sbin and /bin will all point at /usr/bin. So hardcoded paths will not matter. Only file locations will. Allan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1]. > > Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically > removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf? Sounds like a reasonable default. +1 from me. -t
Re: [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > I'm bored of waiting... so lets do this! Please do. I suppose people can still skip staging for packages where that makes sense to minimize the congestion? > What a plans with regard to > [staging] in the near future? If you don't do this soon-ish I was going to do some bluez stuff, but I'm happy to wait if this moves forward. -t
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
Am Wed, 29 May 2013 10:03:29 +0200
schrieb Gaetan Bisson :
> I doubt most of the static libraries our packages ship ever get used,
> so I strongly support getting rid of all that dead weight (that's
> 115M on my system, for instance). If needed, we can explicitly re-add
> options=('staticlibs') to core libraries' PKGBUILD, but that should
> really be the exception rather than the rule.
>
> Cheers.
>
+1
-A
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
Am 29.05.2013 03:31, schrieb Allan McRae: > We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1]. > > Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically > removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf? > > Allan > > > [1] > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2013-March/024552.html Let me know when you commit this to pacman. I can then adjust devtools as we use our own copy of makepkg.conf here. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1]. > > Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically > removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf? > > Allan > > > No objections here. Eric > [1] > > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2013-March/024552.html >
Re: [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > I'm bored of waiting... so lets do this! What a plans with regard to > [staging] in the near future? When it is free, I will kill the current > TODO list and create a new one. > > I just moved the openobex rebuild to the testing repo. The staging repos are currently empty. > > As far as building goes, I'd suggest building in a [testing] chroot and > then uploading to [staging]. Building from [staging] is likely to be > completely broken during this transition. > > Looks like a good plan. Eric > > Draft upgrade instructions: > > 1) Fix any non-official packages with files in /bin, /sbin or /usr/sbin > to put those files in /usr/bin. The list of packages to be fixed can be > generated using: > $ comm -12 <(pacman -Qqm) <(pacman -Qqo /bin /sbin /usr/sbin | sort -u) > > 2) Make sure any packages in IgnorePkg or IgnoreGroup do not have files > in /bin, /sbin, or /usr/sbin. Fix them if necessary. > > 3) Update your system: > $ pacman -Syu --ignore filesystem > $ pacman -Su > > > And that should be enough... With pacman-4.1 (and the patched 4.0.x > versions in our repos since the /lib move), anybody just doing a "pacman > -Syu" will get a conflict. Using --force in pamcan-4.1 will not break > things (I think...) as --force does not allow overwriting a directory > with a file. People using pacman-4.0.x and --force could still break > their system. > > Allan >
Re: [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
On 30/05/13 02:31, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Am 29.05.2013 03:31, schrieb Allan McRae: >> We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1]. >> >> Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically >> removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf? >> >> Allan >> >> >> [1] >> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2013-March/024552.html > > Let me know when you commit this to pacman. I can then adjust devtools > as we use our own copy of makepkg.conf here. > I will do it with the pacman-4.1.2 update. Allan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
On 30/05/13 06:23, Eric Bélanger wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > >> I'm bored of waiting... so lets do this! What a plans with regard to >> [staging] in the near future? When it is free, I will kill the current >> TODO list and create a new one. >> >> > I just moved the openobex rebuild to the testing repo. The staging repos > are currently empty. > Good. Rebuild has started. I may have possible added to many packages to the TODO list initially, so people will have received emails about packages that are already done. Allan
