Re: [arch-general] Kernel LTS won't boot properly
Am Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:35:55 +0530 schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com: On 03/25/2010 02:29 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: Am Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:34:40 +0530 schrieb Nilesh Govindarajanli...@itech7.com: I installed kernel26-lts. It will boot properly upto Udev then screen will flicker and then nothing shows up, but it seems like the boot is going on. Its just after when INIT changes the screen font. Does it mean you are trying to use KMS for screen resolution? It's an Intel card? Udev is probably loading either a kms module or some custom framebuffer module. -Andy I have an Intel Mobo and onboard Intel VGA, Sound, USB, Network. check your kernel append line and modprobe.d settings for frambuffer and bad kms settings. -Andy
Re: [arch-general] Issue with man
On 25 March 2010 00:36, Damien Churchill dam...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 March 2010 23:52, Linas linas...@ymail.com wrote: Damien Churchill wrote: I've got a rather confusing issue with man. Whenever I try and view a man page I just end up with a blank screen. http://www.imagebam.com/image/41dd5973332829 This occurs for any page, even for local ones. I was wondering if anyone would be able to shed any light on why this is occuring? Thanks, Damien Does less work with other files? What happens if you use a different pager? Eg. PAGER=more man ls Hmm no that doesn't work, it just exits immediately without displaying anything. I also just tried man -Hchromium ls, and that displays a blank webpage. Turns out that I was having the same issue as in this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=46501 Reinstalling groff did the trick. Guess it never installed correctly the first time for some reason as although the files were there pacman didn't think that the package was installed.
[arch-general] Dirty fonts in Chromium
Appearance of sites in Chromium is very dirty, though I didn't change the default font settings. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site Server Administrator www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] Kernel LTS won't boot properly
On 03/25/2010 01:18 PM, Andreas Radke wrote: Am Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:35:55 +0530 schrieb Nilesh Govindarajanli...@itech7.com: On 03/25/2010 02:29 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: Am Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:34:40 +0530 schrieb Nilesh Govindarajanli...@itech7.com: I installed kernel26-lts. It will boot properly upto Udev then screen will flicker and then nothing shows up, but it seems like the boot is going on. Its just after when INIT changes the screen font. Does it mean you are trying to use KMS for screen resolution? It's an Intel card? Udev is probably loading either a kms module or some custom framebuffer module. -Andy I have an Intel Mobo and onboard Intel VGA, Sound, USB, Network. check your kernel append line and modprobe.d settings for frambuffer and bad kms settings. -Andy My kernel append line has nothing except for the rootfs settings. In /etc/modprobe.d, there are no KMS settings. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site Server Administrator www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] Dirty fonts in Chromium
On 03/25/2010 05:06 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: Appearance of sites in Chromium is very dirty, though I didn't change the default font settings. Oops, it seems its related to the site. Sorry ignore this thread. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site Server Administrator www.itech7.com
[arch-general] tmpfs
Good day everyone, I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab: none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such thing, all the information I could get on the internet is that shm is for POSIX shared memory support and that almost any program actually use it, for devpts I couldn't find much information about it. does anyone knows if it is safe to remove those lines from my fstab? thank you.
Re: [arch-general] tmpfs
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:53 +0900, Juan Diego wrote: Good day everyone, I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab: none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such thing, all the information I could get on the internet is that shm is for POSIX shared memory support and that almost any program actually use it, for devpts I couldn't find much information about it. does anyone knows if it is safe to remove those lines from my fstab? thank you. /dev/pts is required for virtual terminals like xterm, gnome-terminal and others. Without that filesystem you can't start a virtual terminal. /dev/shm is used for shared memory, it's a requirement for NPTL semaphore functions. Now that /dev is also on tmpfs, I don't know if it's harmful to remove. The main requirement is that this folder has 1777 permissions.
Re: [arch-general] tmpfs
Am 25.03.2010 16:53, schrieb Juan Diego: Good day everyone, I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab: none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such thing, all the information I could get on the internet is that shm is for POSIX shared memory support and that almost any program actually use it, for devpts I couldn't find much information about it. does anyone knows if it is safe to remove those lines from my fstab? This is definitely NOT SAFE! If you don't have /dev/shm, POSIX shared memory will use the same tmpfs filesystem as /dev, which is currently limited to 10MB - POSIX shared memory blocks might be much larger. As for removing /dev/pts, I was tempted to tell you to do it, as it's SO funny what happens: No pseudo TTYs are available anymore. This will effectively prevent ssh logins, screen, any X terminal and probably many more applications from allocating a TTY, so the only way to get a shell is to login via a real TTY (console). I am curious, why would you want to remove these? I am glad thouh that you asked BEFORE killing your system instead of after. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] rankmirrors with arch-games
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 15:18, Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 14:20, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not super thrilled about this regression. Either way, I think we should probably add an option to the scripts to use a designated file as the target for rankmirrors testing; this way you could specify a DB filename or any other file as the target to test against. -Dan I have something along those lines; sending it out shortly For some reason I can't get git send-email to work through gmail while keeping my +Arch intact, so mailman keeps dropping my patch emails since it's sent as daenyth@ rather than daenyth+arch@ (my subscribed name). Could a list moderator put those through?
Re: [arch-general] tmpfs
Am 25.03.2010 17:12, schrieb Xavier Chantry: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: This is definitely NOT SAFE! If you don't have /dev/shm, POSIX shared memory will use the same tmpfs filesystem as /dev, which is currently limited to 10MB - POSIX shared memory blocks might be much larger. As for removing /dev/pts, I was tempted to tell you to do it, as it's SO funny what happens: No pseudo TTYs are available anymore. This will effectively prevent ssh logins, screen, any X terminal and probably many more applications from allocating a TTY, so the only way to get a shell is to login via a real TTY (console). I am curious, why would you want to remove these? I am glad thouh that you asked BEFORE killing your system instead of after. Random suggestion : adding a one-line comment before these two entries describing what they are for (i.e. sumup of the above) :) Patches welcome. Personally, I don't think it's worth the time - anyone who is going to mess with these entries is either expected to know what they are for or fail miserably. However, as someone who has been messing with this stuff for 10 years, I am probably not the right person to ask. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] grep-2.6-1
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Upstream big update. Local changelog: - Removed the multibyte locale speed-up patch (and all the patches to fix the issues it created...) as it is now included upstream. - Removed the other patches as it appears they are not being considered upstream. Upstream NEWS: * Noteworthy changes in release 2.6 (2010-03-23) [stable] ** Speed improvements grep is much faster on multibyte character sets, especially (but not limited to) UTF-8 character sets. The speed improvement is also very pronounced with case-insensitive matches. That's awesome. After all these years, I thought this would never happen :) I did a quick benchmark before and after, and I got very similar results, so we are good. grep -i is still considerably slower than grep in UTF-8 (0.1 - 1.5s , that is 15x slower), but IIRC it was MUCH worse with an unpatched grep 2.5, like hundred of times slower. With LANG=C , grep and grep -i are both at 0.1s.
Re: [arch-general] tmpfs
I wanted to remove them because I was cleaning my fstab of old entries that I dont use anymore, so I found those two in the middle of the way, I guess they will have to stay there On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 25.03.2010 17:12, schrieb Xavier Chantry: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: This is definitely NOT SAFE! If you don't have /dev/shm, POSIX shared memory will use the same tmpfs filesystem as /dev, which is currently limited to 10MB - POSIX shared memory blocks might be much larger. As for removing /dev/pts, I was tempted to tell you to do it, as it's SO funny what happens: No pseudo TTYs are available anymore. This will effectively prevent ssh logins, screen, any X terminal and probably many more applications from allocating a TTY, so the only way to get a shell is to login via a real TTY (console). I am curious, why would you want to remove these? I am glad thouh that you asked BEFORE killing your system instead of after. Random suggestion : adding a one-line comment before these two entries describing what they are for (i.e. sumup of the above) :) Patches welcome. Personally, I don't think it's worth the time - anyone who is going to mess with these entries is either expected to know what they are for or fail miserably. However, as someone who has been messing with this stuff for 10 years, I am probably not the right person to ask.
Re: [arch-general] rankmirrors with arch-games
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 15:18, Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 14:20, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not super thrilled about this regression. Either way, I think we should probably add an option to the scripts to use a designated file as the target for rankmirrors testing; this way you could specify a DB filename or any other file as the target to test against. -Dan I have something along those lines; sending it out shortly For some reason I can't get git send-email to work through gmail while keeping my +Arch intact, so mailman keeps dropping my patch emails since it's sent as daenyth@ rather than daenyth+arch@ (my subscribed name). Could a list moderator put those through? I haven't seen anything come in telling me about emails in the moderation queue; I don't think we keep those around. The only thing I get in a queue that I can release is emails 40 KB. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] tmpfs
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 01:47 +0900, Juan Diego wrote: I wanted to remove them because I was cleaning my fstab of old entries that I dont use anymore, so I found those two in the middle of the way, I guess they will have to stay there Bottom-posting, please... And yes, I've wanted to remove them before. Thankfully google set me right on that one.
[arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
2010/3/25 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? I assumed the same, though I cannot confirm its true. Important note for people running it to this, because of the version change pacman will dump out on Syu claiming local version is newer - this needs to be installed manually with a standard -S. Just an FYI.
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto: Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option. svn log message says Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593 -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:07 +0100, Giovanni Scafora wrote: Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto: Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option. svn log message says Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593 Yes, that seems to be what has happened. Should this be handled by updating gsfonts (to pkgrel 2 with appropriate force options) or by announcement? Seems the gsfonts package is 'dead' upstream? And we're now taking from Fedora's package? Or development simply moved there?
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora giova...@archlinux.org wrote: Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto: Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version : 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option. svn log message says Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593 It's indeed all well explained in the two comments of that bug : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10593#comment59554
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:31 +0100, Xavier Chantry wrote: On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora giova...@archlinux.org wrote: Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto: Repository : extra Name : gsfonts Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 Installed : 8.11-5 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option. svn log message says Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593 It's indeed all well explained in the two comments of that bug : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10593#comment59554 Oh! I thought the bug number was Fedora's bug tracker my bad. Explains very well.
