[arch-general] regarding kernel 2.6.23.11
There seems to be an issue with the alsa snapshot used in the kernel 2.6.23.11 package. It's reported here http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8948 For me, it breaks gstreamer. I opted to post here so people who are on testing don't update their kernel. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
On Dec 16, 2007 11:48 AM, Karolina Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > söndag 16 december 2007 skrev Mister Dobalina: > > > The point is that the developers don't want to get a > > bunch of bug reports for things that might be > > i586-specific problems. They are saying "we've tested > > the package that is built using this PKGBUILD on i686 > > and/or x86_64, and if you have a problem with it let > > us know, but if you use this PKGBUILD to build for > > some other architecture, you're on your own". > > > > Well, that's exactly what it means now. But the devs > > don't want to go to the work of doing that on i586, > > because arch is an i686/x86_64-optimized distribution, > > and has never claimed to be "tried and working" on > > i586. > > Is that the opinion of all the developers? > > If it is so, I have to consider forking off my own distribution based on > archlinux. It simplifies some things, since I can deviate and don't have to > care for policies and so on. But forks can create extra trouble in the > future, and it always splits up human resources. > > Anyway, I already have archi586 running, and currently I am mostly spending > time with bugs in archlinux, and not so much with the i586 implementation. As far as I know we don't have plans for an i586 port. There's lowarch, which I think was mentioned around this thread already (apologies for not reading the backlogs) - if you're that dedicated about maintaining i586 then you should get in contact with the lowarch people and try to combine efforts, instead of doing it all yourself. We encourage ports - we certainly don't have the manpower to maintain a ton of architectures, and if others are willing to provide Arch for different platforms, we won't stand in the way. As far as the way Arch currently is, we started out with i686 and expanded to include x86_64 when it became a popular choice and we had willing volunteers for it. We don't currently support i586 "officially" and, as far as I know, have no plan to - partly because none of the devs have the need to run Arch on i586 hardware, I imagine, although I might be wrong. So yes, bug reports for problems specifically on i586 (though I doubt there would be many differences) will probably be considered low-priority. Our original target was i686 and greater - that was part of the distro's selling points, due to the added responsiveness and snappiness i686 optimization gave the system. PKGBUILDs list what architectures we've personally built and tested them on. The fact that makepkg errors out when an architecture isn't listed in the arch=(...) array is, IMO, probably not the best behaviour, and in pacman 3.1's makepkg there's the option to ignore that as a warning instead of refusing to build. If you want to grab the development (-git) version of pacman, you can use Dan's devel repo by adding the following to pacman.conf: [pacman-git] Server = http://www.archlinux.org/~dan/pacman-git/ And install it with pacman -Sy pacman-git.
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
söndag 16 december 2007 skrev Mister Dobalina: > The point is that the developers don't want to get a > bunch of bug reports for things that might be > i586-specific problems. They are saying "we've tested > the package that is built using this PKGBUILD on i686 > and/or x86_64, and if you have a problem with it let > us know, but if you use this PKGBUILD to build for > some other architecture, you're on your own". <<>> > Well, that's exactly what it means now. But the devs > don't want to go to the work of doing that on i586, > because arch is an i686/x86_64-optimized distribution, > and has never claimed to be "tried and working" on > i586. Is that the opinion of all the developers? If it is so, I have to consider forking off my own distribution based on archlinux. It simplifies some things, since I can deviate and don't have to care for policies and so on. But forks can create extra trouble in the future, and it always splits up human resources. Anyway, I already have archi586 running, and currently I am mostly spending time with bugs in archlinux, and not so much with the i586 implementation. Karolina
[arch-general] Kiosktool, missing buttons.
Hello all, I just installed "kiosktool" from extra but all the buttons (back, next, help, etc) are missing. The menus do appear, but no buttons, so the program is useless. This is wheather I start it as a user or as root. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. Jorge.
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
--- Karolina Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I added i586 when I did it the last time, > one year ago, with the > result that it was practically hopeless to diff with > the original, when doing > an update with "abs". So this time, I just ignore to > put in i586, making it > easier with upgrades. Yes, you will have to do this search-and-replace i686->i586 after every time you update abs. > I still question the whole purpose of the arch= tag, > if it means that it > is "certified" by the developers. All files > downloaded with abs are certified > by the developers, so what is the big deal? And > makeworld does not exclude > building packages that are not for the architecture. The point is that the developers don't want to get a bunch of bug reports for things that might be i586-specific problems. They are saying "we've tested the package that is built using this PKGBUILD on i686 and/or x86_64, and if you have a problem with it let us know, but if you use this PKGBUILD to build for some other architecture, you're on your own". Though I agree that makepkg just aborting on i586 is kind of pointless, just a nice big warning would suffice. From previous posts I assume this will change in future versions of makepkg. > And then, what does it mean for AUR, if everyone are > forced to put the tag in, > but now not meaning that it is certified by the > developers anymore? I assume AUR maintainers are free to put whatever they like in the arch tag -- it's up to them what architectures they want to support for their specific package. > I think a better usage would be that the package is > tried and works and is > meaningful on that architecture. Well, that's exactly what it means now. But the devs don't want to go to the work of doing that on i586, because arch is an i686/x86_64-optimized distribution, and has never claimed to be "tried and working" on i586. Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.ca
