Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
On 08/05/10 23:11, Matěj Týč wrote: What's wrong with that pacmatic functionality that shomehow tries to solve this, since it is not implemented in pacman? pacmantic's functionality is Arch specific while pacman is not. Message 29 in a thread that had the initial question answered in post #2... :)
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD contributor, maintainer, author...
On 09/05/10 16:08, vlad wrote: On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 01:09:46AM +0300, Ionut Biru wrote: On 05/09/2010 01:02 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote: Hello Arch, i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there is more than one way people use to define authors... (/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor") till now i've found: - Contributor - Maintainer - Author so i wonder what others should i parse ? or could you/we make a standard ? cheers .andre in proto was fixed in the next version of pacman. The standard is Maintainer and Contributor. Maintainer the current person who's maintaining the packager. Contributor past maintainers or persons who did contribute in a way to the build(if the current maintainer wants to add them) Finally a clear definition! The main principle I use when deciding on things like this is the phrase "Who gives a shit?". :P Seriously... it is a comment so it does nothing. Does either label make it less informative if it is the only one there? Allan
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD contributor, maintainer, author...
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 01:09:46AM +0300, Ionut Biru wrote: > On 05/09/2010 01:02 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote: > >Hello Arch, > > > >i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was > >testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there > >is more than one way people use to define authors... > >(/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor") > > > >till now i've found: > >- Contributor > >- Maintainer > >- Author > > > >so i wonder what others should i parse ? > >or could you/we make a standard ? > > > >cheers > >.andre > > in proto was fixed in the next version of pacman. The standard is > Maintainer and Contributor. > > Maintainer the current person who's maintaining the packager. > Contributor past maintainers or persons who did contribute in a way > to the build(if the current maintainer wants to add them) Finally a clear definition! > > -- > Ionut --
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD contributor, maintainer, author...
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Andre Osku Schmidt wrote: > Hello Arch, > > i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was > testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there > is more than one way people use to define authors... > (/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor") > > till now i've found: > - Contributor > - Maintainer > - Author > > so i wonder what others should i parse ? > or could you/we make a standard ? > > cheers > .andre Maintainer specifies the actual maintainer of a package, while Contributor refers to previous maintainers of the package. So when the maintainer of a package changes, the old one is listed as Contributor from there on and the new one as Maintainer. Source: Arch Packaging Standards[1] on the Archwiki [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_the_AUR pgpD8XizHlJ2c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD contributor, maintainer, author...
On 05/09/2010 01:02 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote: Hello Arch, i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there is more than one way people use to define authors... (/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor") till now i've found: - Contributor - Maintainer - Author so i wonder what others should i parse ? or could you/we make a standard ? cheers .andre in proto was fixed in the next version of pacman. The standard is Maintainer and Contributor. Maintainer the current person who's maintaining the packager. Contributor past maintainers or persons who did contribute in a way to the build(if the current maintainer wants to add them) -- Ionut
[arch-general] PKGBUILD contributor, maintainer, author...
Hello Arch, i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there is more than one way people use to define authors... (/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor") till now i've found: - Contributor - Maintainer - Author so i wonder what others should i parse ? or could you/we make a standard ? cheers .andre
[arch-general] audacious segfaults; can debug because of dependencies
Hello list, I tried audacious for a change this morning, but it segfaulted on visualisation change[1]. From the look of the backtrace[2], and seeing that glib was updated a couple of days ago, a simple rebuild of the package should be sufficient. I would normally have submitted that to the bug tracker, but didn't as : - it requires login to a web interface; - I can't test the suggested fix as audacious' PKGBUILD has a depends on audacious-plugins, and audacious-plugins has a makedepends on audacious. 1. - Steps to reproduce : - start playing a webradio, it happened with the MP3 flux from frequence3.fr - right click on the interface, select "Visualisation / Type de visualisation", try each one in order then back to the first one, "Analyseur". 2. % gdb audacious [...snip...] (gdb) run Starting program: /usr/bin/audacious [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread 0xb718ab70 (LWP 12470)] [New Thread 0xb5f4fb70 (LWP 12471)] [New Thread 0xb492bb70 (LWP 12472)] [New Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12473)] [Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12473) exited] [New Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12474)] [Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12474) exited] [New Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12475)] [New Thread 0xb373fb70 (LWP 12476)] [New Thread 0xb2f1eb70 (LWP 12477)] [Thread 0xb2f1eb70 (LWP 12477) exited] [Thread 0xb373fb70 (LWP 12476) exited] [Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12475) exited] [New Thread 0xb3fffb70 (LWP 12478)] [New Thread 0xb373fb70 (LWP 12479)] [New Thread 0xb2f1eb70 (LWP 12480)] [Thread 0xb492bb70 (LWP 12472) exited] Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0xb618d444 in ui_vis_expose () from /usr/lib/audacious/General/skins.so (gdb) bt #0 0xb618d444 in ui_vis_expose () from /usr/lib/audacious/General/skins.so #1 0xb7c6d1f4 in _gtk_marshal_BOOLEAN__BOXED () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #2 0xb7a55b99 in g_type_class_meta_marshal () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #3 0xb7a57252 in g_closure_invoke () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #4 0xb7a66b75 in signal_emit_unlocked_R () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #5 0xb7a6f593 in g_signal_emit_valist () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #6 0xb7a6f9b6 in g_signal_emit () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #7 0xb7d9ec46 in gtk_widget_event_internal () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #8 0xb7c6ba41 in gtk_main_do_event () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #9 0xb7ae1d51 in _gdk_window_process_updates_recurse () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #10 0xb7ae1cfd in _gdk_window_process_updates_recurse () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #11 0xb7b13a04 in _gdk_windowing_window_process_updates_recurse () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #12 0xb7add63c in gdk_window_process_updates_internal () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #13 0xb7adf3f7 in gdk_window_process_all_updates () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #14 0xb7adf47b in gdk_window_update_idle () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #15 0xb7abcbc8 in gdk_threads_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 #16 0xb7f3b041 in g_idle_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 #17 0xb7f3ef72 in g_main_context_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 #18 0xb7f3f750 in g_main_context_iterate () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 #19 0xb7f3fdfb in g_main_loop_run () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 #20 0xb7c6a439 in gtk_main () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #21 0xb618323e in skins_init () from /usr/lib/audacious/General/skins.so #22 0x08056e3c in ?? () #23 0xb786cb96 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 #24 0x08050a21 in ?? () -- Fred
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
- Original Message From: Kaiting Chen To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 9:50:24 AM Subject: Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim? Hey just want to jump in here and say that I don't think it's a problem in communication. We like Linux and especially Arch because it lets us do what we want, and with power comes responsibility. That responsibility means that one should do a kernel of research before asking for help. In this case it took me less than a second to Google for 'arch vim gvim' and see that the first item on the list was the news announce about the updated packages. You can't have power without responsibility; I need the flexibility of Arch to maintain a small cluster that combines security, centralized administration, as well as the cutting edge software necessary for a testbed, so I am willing to put some time into my system administration. I'm not saying that everyone needs to invest that much time into maintaining their systems, but if you can't be bothered to enter three keywords into Google you really shouldn't be using Arch. Kaiting. --- Well said sir. On another note, I have seen some of David's postings where he was really trying to help people, e.g., his notes on setting up Apache etc from quite awhile back - he does seem to post a lot, and honestly I did start not paying attention to a lot of them, but I think he is a good guy, and we should be careful not to alienate users. Yes, while most of everything that has been said is true, everyone should remember that tone is very important and often reveals much more than the underlying factual content of what is attempting to be conveyed, even (or sometimes moreso) in textual conversation. I understand that this sort of tone may be warranted, but I think at this point (hopefully), he gets it. Keeping the tone positive I think is a good thing guys. -Jonathan
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
Hey just want to jump in here and say that I don't think it's a problem in communication. We like Linux and especially Arch because it lets us do what we want, and with power comes responsibility. That responsibility means that one should do a kernel of research before asking for help. In this case it took me less than a second to Google for 'arch vim gvim' and see that the first item on the list was the news announce about the updated packages. You can't have power without responsibility; I need the flexibility of Arch to maintain a small cluster that combines security, centralized administration, as well as the cutting edge software necessary for a testbed, so I am willing to put some time into my system administration. I'm not saying that everyone needs to invest that much time into maintaining their systems, but if you can't be bothered to enter three keywords into Google you really shouldn't be using Arch. Kaiting. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Matěj Týč wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 11:57 +0200, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote: > > I think the question "Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?" > > reveals a problem of communication. Let me explain: > > > > The news/announce "Vim/GVim 7.2.411 Update" has been published the > > 2010-04-18 (when vim/gvim landed in [testing] ?). So it's over 19 days > > now. That's the problem. Even on the website you have to scroll down > > quite a bit to finaly see that news. > > ... > > One idea would be that announces for [testing] could be done on a > > separate channel/mailing-list ? and that announces for > > core/extra/community are made in arch-announce and on the website at the > > time packages landed in core/extra/community (1 or 2 days before)? > > > > What do you think ? > > > > Guys, he is right. > > Sometimes it happens that you encounter an issue that has been covered > in news when you install Arch and then you run pacman -Syu months after > the news entry was published. > > This is a problem, at least to some extent and it should be looked at > it, maybe someone can come up with a brilliant idea... > > But it is not the first time this has been discussed, it comes every > time when an important news is released. > What's wrong with that pacmatic functionality that shomehow tries to > solve this, since it is not implemented in pacman? > > > -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 11:57 +0200, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote: > I think the question "Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?" > reveals a problem of communication. Let me explain: > > The news/announce "Vim/GVim 7.2.411 Update" has been published the > 2010-04-18 (when vim/gvim landed in [testing] ?). So it's over 19 days > now. That's the problem. Even on the website you have to scroll down > quite a bit to finaly see that news. > ... > One idea would be that announces for [testing] could be done on a > separate channel/mailing-list ? and that announces for > core/extra/community are made in arch-announce and on the website at the > time packages landed in core/extra/community (1 or 2 days before)? > > What do you think ? > Guys, he is right. Sometimes it happens that you encounter an issue that has been covered in news when you install Arch and then you run pacman -Syu months after the news entry was published. This is a problem, at least to some extent and it should be looked at it, maybe someone can come up with a brilliant idea... But it is not the first time this has been discussed, it comes every time when an important news is released. What's wrong with that pacmatic functionality that shomehow tries to solve this, since it is not implemented in pacman?
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
Excerpts from solsTiCe d'Hiver's message of 2010-05-08 11:57:45 +0200: > I think the question "Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?" > reveals a problem of communication. Let me explain: > > The news/announce "Vim/GVim 7.2.411 Update" has been published the > 2010-04-18 (when vim/gvim landed in [testing] ?). So it's over 19 days > now. That's the problem. Even on the website you have to scroll down > quite a bit to finaly see that news. > > Because even for an arch user that follows arch-announce or keep > himself/herself updated on archlinux status/news, he/she has certainly > already forgotten that news when vim/gvim finally landed in [extra]. Right. I did read this mail before I upgraded, so I was kind of prepared, otherwise I would have wondered as well. I do remember that there was a vim/gvim related news item, but I thought the change had happened weeks ago. Maybe it was another vim/gvim thing... As for what to do about such a thing... I don't know. Certainly not jump on trees if someone asks a question. -- Regards, Philipp
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux release Schedule
On Sat, 08 May 2010 11:50:27 +0200 Mathieu Pasquet wrote: > On 07/05/2010 21:53, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: > >> > Archlinux have rolling releases. You can use *netinstall*.iso for > >> > installing new software or just do `pacman -Syu` after install. > > I second that. I have met someone who just can't easily install > ArchLinux because his network card is supported only since the 2.6.33 > kernel. you quoted the wrong part, that's not what i said. Dieter
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
I think the question "Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?" reveals a problem of communication. Let me explain: The news/announce "Vim/GVim 7.2.411 Update" has been published the 2010-04-18 (when vim/gvim landed in [testing] ?). So it's over 19 days now. That's the problem. Even on the website you have to scroll down quite a bit to finaly see that news. Because even for an arch user that follows arch-announce or keep himself/herself updated on archlinux status/news, he/she has certainly already forgotten that news when vim/gvim finally landed in [extra]. There could be a mechanism to remind us, arch users, of the previous news may be. Something non redundant with the already published news. One idea would be that announces for [testing] could be done on a separate channel/mailing-list ? and that announces for core/extra/community are made in arch-announce and on the website at the time packages landed in core/extra/community (1 or 2 days before)? What do you think ?
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux release Schedule
On 07/05/2010 21:53, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: >> > Archlinux have rolling releases. You can use *netinstall*.iso for >> > installing new software or just do `pacman -Syu` after install. I second that. I have met someone who just can't easily install ArchLinux because his network card is supported only since the 2.6.33 kernel.
