[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 6 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 8 fully signed off packages * 48 packages missing signoffs * 4 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 (6 total) == * libedit-20140620_3.1-1 (i686) * s-nail-14.7.6-1 (i686) * libedit-20140620_3.1-1 (x86_64) * s-nail-14.7.6-1 (x86_64) * vim-7.4.404-1 (i686) * vim-7.4.404-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (6 total) == * dirmngr-1.1.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * iproute2-3.16.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lvm2-2.02.109-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dirmngr-1.1.1-3 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * libedit-20140620_3.1-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * s-nail-14.7.6-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (34 total) == * perl-lwp-protocol-https-6.06-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-bibtexextra-2014.34822-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-core-2014.34872-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-fontsextra-2014.34817-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-formatsextra-2014.33826-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-games-2014.34491-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-genericextra-2014.34393-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-htmlxml-2014.34624-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-humanities-2014.34877-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langcjk-2014.0-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langcyrillic-2014.34390-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langextra-2014.34660-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langgreek-2014.34857-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-latexextra-2014.34865-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-music-2014.33826-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-pictures-2014.34851-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-plainextra-2014.34228-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-pstricks-2014.34856-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-publishers-2014.34878-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-science-2014.34853-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * jack-0.124.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * java7-openjdk-7.u65_2.5.1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * subversion-1.8.10-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * texlive-bin-2014.34260-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * upower-0.99.0-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vim-7.4.404-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * jack-0.124.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * java7-openjdk-7.u65_2.5.1-7 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * subversion-1.8.10-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-bin-2014.34260-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * upower-0.99.0-3 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * vim-7.4.404-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (8 total) == * java-common-1-3 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langchinese-2014.34415-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langjapanese-2014.34369-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-langkorean-2014.34808-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * java8-openjdk-8.u20.b23-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libreoffice-still-4.2.6-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * java8-openjdk-8.u20.b23-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libreoffice-still-4.2.6-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (8 total) == * libedit-20140620_3.1-1 (i686) * libnl-3.2.25-1 (i686) * libpcap-1.6.1-1 (i686) * s-nail-14.7.6-1 (i686) * iproute2-3.16.0-1 (x86_64) * libnl-3.2.25-1 (x86_64) * libpcap-1.6.1-1 (x86_64) * lvm2-2.02.109-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) == * libnl-3.2.25-1 (i686), since 2014-07-30 * libnl-3.2.25-1 (x86_64), since 2014-07-30 * libpcap-1.6.1-1 (i686), since 2014-07-30 * libpcap-1.6.1-1 (x86_64), since 2014-07-30 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 6 signoffs 2. fyan - 3 signoffs
[arch-dev-public] OpenJDK 8 packages from testing pulled back
OpenJDK 8 packages with bad version numbers (8.u20.b23) were pushed to [testing]. New packages are now available (8.u11). Unfortunatly as new package version is lower than the faulty one, pacman should yield the following when updating: warning: jdk8-openjdk: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) warning: jre8-openjdk: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) warning: jre8-openjdk-headless: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) To sort this out, please manually install all 3 packages: # pacman -S jre8-openjdk jre8-openjdk-headless jdk8-openjdk warning: downgrading package jre8-openjdk (8.u20.b23-1 = 8.u11-1) warning: downgrading package jre8-openjdk-headless (8.u20.b23-1 = 8.u11-1) warning: downgrading package jdk8-openjdk (8.u20.b23-1 = 8.u11-1) resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... Packages (3): jdk8-openjdk-8.u11-1 jre8-openjdk-8.u11-1 jre8-openjdk-headless-8.u11-1 Total Download Size:33.34 MiB Total Installed Size: 131.77 MiB Net Upgrade Size: -0.30 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y […] Guillaume
Re: [arch-dev-public] OpenJDK 8 packages from testing pulled back
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Guillaume ALAUX guilla...@archlinux.org wrote: OpenJDK 8 packages with bad version numbers (8.u20.b23) were pushed to [testing]. New packages are now available (8.u11). Unfortunatly as new package version is lower than the faulty one, pacman should yield the following when updating: warning: jdk8-openjdk: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) warning: jre8-openjdk: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) warning: jre8-openjdk-headless: local (8.u20.b23-1) is newer than testing (8.u11-1) To sort this out, please manually install all 3 packages: # pacman -S jre8-openjdk jre8-openjdk-headless jdk8-openjdk Note that this also affects openjdk8-src if you have it installed.
Re: [arch-dev-public] OpenJDK 8 packages from testing pulled back
On Aug 16, 2014 2:32 PM, Guillaume ALAUX guilla...@archlinux.org wrote: OpenJDK 8 packages with bad version numbers (8.u20.b23) were pushed to [testing]. New packages are now available (8.u11). Thank you Guillaume, great work! What about the doc package?
Re: [arch-dev-public] OpenJDK 8 packages from testing pulled back
On 16 August 2014 17:12, Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org wrote: On Aug 16, 2014 2:32 PM, Guillaume ALAUX guilla...@archlinux.org wrote: OpenJDK 8 packages with bad version numbers (8.u20.b23) were pushed to [testing]. New packages are now available (8.u11). Thank you Guillaume, great work! What about the doc package? Yes, forgot about the source package, so one should: # pacman -S jre8-openjdk jre8-openjdk-headless jdk8-openjdk openjdk8-src @Andrea: I'm working on adding the -doc package.
Re: [arch-dev-public] libreoffice-still install messages
Am Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:11:02 +0200 schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski b...@bpiotrowski.pl: On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:33:30 +1000 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: As an aside... why name the package libreoffice-still and not just keep libreoffice? As a user I would expect pacman -S libreoffice to find some form of libreoffice. Allan I can't really give a good answer, as I'm for keeping plain libreoffice too. Another possibility is libreoffice virtual package provided by both -still and -fresh, but I'll abstain before Andy returns. We can drop install messages about splitting now. Note: The splitting has been reduced in LibO 4.3 packages (currently the LibO - fresh branch). About the branches: LibreOffice has two releases at a time. Those are called libreoffice-fresh and libreoffice-still. Fresh ist the one with new features and usually with bugs many users can't accept in a production use case. The LibO community does maintain a 2nd branch called still for critical use cases. The fresh releases becomes the new still release when a new major fresh release happens after 6 months. In the past Arch shipped the fresh releases from .1 or .2 minor releases but they were still very fresh and sometimes a serious feature is still broken at that time. Pointing user to ABS and patch yourself is pretty unfair with that large package that takes ages to compile. So we went forward and ship now both branches. This will also help upstream with more users of the fresh branch and earlier bug reports from a distribution use. About the name still: That's an upstream decision we take over. We don't want to prefer one or the other branch. So there is no more a simple libreoffice package. pacman -S libreoffice should force the users to decide one or the other branch. http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-Still-tt4117297.html There's some info from upstream devs about the branch naming scheme. For safety the -still branch packages will replace the old libreoffice packages. It's just release in the same branch LibO 4.2.5 to 4.2.6. I'll put a note about the new -fresh branch into the new -still install msg. -Andy -Andy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
