Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On 05/18/2010 03:47 PM, Sergey Manucharian wrote:
Excerpts from Linas's message of Tue, 18 May 2010 22:31 +0200:
David C. Rankin wrote:
Guys,
I'm usually quite good at one-liners, but my simple ones no
longer work in Arch. Same cli works fine in suse. What have I
messed up? To wit:
What could keep the simple cli from working on Arch? I know
this stuff worked before updates this morning... What should I look
at?
Bash was updated from 4.1.5(2) to 4.1.7(2).
I can't reproduce it, though.
I cannot reproduce it either and suspect that your ls under $() is
not the real ls, but an alias. I've played with some, and they indeed
produce bad output.
Cheers,
Sergey
Ahah! I bet you are right. I have aliased ls as:
alias ls='ls --color --group-directories-first'
which is the way I like ls to work. Let's do a test:
[01:19 nirvana:/home/david] # mv /etc/bash.bashrc.local
/etc/bash.bashrc.local.sav
[01:19 nirvana:/home/david] # x
exit
01:19 nirvana:~ su
[01:20 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0] # for i in $(ls); do echo dir:
$i; done
dir: i586
dir: noarch
dir: repodata
dir: repoview
dir: src
dir: x86_64
now dropping back to my user shell where the alias is still applied:
01:21 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(ls); do echo dir: $i;
done
dir: i586
dir: noarch
dir: repodata
dir: repoview
dir: src
dir: x86_64
Double Huh??? Now it works?? I haven't altered the environment for this shell
yet?? Let's use my original command line:
01:22 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(ls); do ls ${i}; done
ls: cannot access i586: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access noarch: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access repodata: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access repoview: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access src: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access x86_64: No such file or directory
Ah hah! I knew I was screwing myself, I just didn't know how. Let's find out:
01:23 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(ls); do echo '$i';
done
'i586'
'noarch'
'repodata'
'repoview'
'src'
'x86_64'
01:24 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(ls); do echo 'ls
${i}'; done
'ls i586'
'ls noarch'
'ls repodata'
'ls repoview'
'ls src'
'ls x86_64'
01:25 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(ls); do echo 'ls
${i}'; ls $i; done
'ls i586'
ls: cannot access i586: No such file or directory
'ls noarch'
ls: cannot access noarch: No such file or directory
'ls repodata'
ls: cannot access repodata: No such file or directory
'ls repoview'
ls: cannot access repoview: No such file or directory
'ls src'
ls: cannot access src: No such file or directory
'ls x86_64'
ls: cannot access x86_64: No such file or directory
... I give up :-( ...
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On 05/18/2010 03:58 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Sergey Manucharian
ingeniw...@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpts from Linas's message of Tue, 18 May 2010 22:31 +0200:
David C. Rankin wrote:
Guys,
I'm usually quite good at one-liners, but my simple ones no
longer work in Arch. Same cli works fine in suse. What have I
messed up? To wit:
What could keep the simple cli from working on Arch? I know
this stuff worked before updates this morning... What should I look
at?
Bash was updated from 4.1.5(2) to 4.1.7(2).
I can't reproduce it, though.
I cannot reproduce it either and suspect that your ls under $() is
not the real ls, but an alias. I've played with some, and they indeed
produce bad output.
If this is the case, replace ls with /bin/ls in the above and try again
01:28 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 for i in $(/bin/ls); do echo -e
'ls ${i}'\n; /bin/ls ${i}; done
'ls i586'
compiz-0.8.6-46.1.i586.rpm
compiz-plugins-extra-devel-0.8.6-5.2.i586.rpm
snip
Wohoo! It works
So the bottom line is don't alias 'ls'. And, I guess, the next question
would
be, how or where can I safely customize the behavior of ls without screwing
myself again. I had thought that setting a system wide alias for ls would be OK
by setting it in /etc/bash.bashrc.local. The contents were:
01:30 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms/compiz_X11.0 cat /etc/bash.bashrc.local.sav
alias ls='ls --color --group-directories-first'
Just tinkering, here is what I've found. If I make the changes in
~/.bashrc,
the everything works fine, but if I make the same change in
/etc/bash.bashrc.local, then the problem occurs. If you want to re-create my
problem, just include the following alias:
alias ls='ls --color --group-directories-first'
in:
/etc/bash.bashrc.local
Then find a simple directory and try to run:
for i in $(ls); do ls ${i}; done
It will bomb. Then delete the alias from /etc/bash.bashrc.local and put
the
'same' alias in your ~/.bashrc. The for loop works fine ... and ... you get the
customized 'ls' behavior.
What I do not understand is why the difference whether you put the
alias in
/etc/bash.bashrc.local or ~/.bashrc?
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 01:41 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote: So the bottom line is don't alias 'ls'. And, I guess, the next question would be, how or where can I safely customize the behavior of ls without screwing myself again. Solution is simple: don't use ls for the for loops you're doing. I just tested it on my system, the colored files and directories give No such file or directory, which makes sense, as the variable contains ascii chars for color information. I would suggest using globbing, why would you use for i in $(ls); while you can use for i in *;
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On 05/18/2010 03:23 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 16:17, David C. Rankin drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com wrote: Guys, I'm usually quite good at one-liners, but my simple ones no longer work in Arch. Same cli works fine in suse. What have I messed up? To wit: In short, you're doing it wrong. http://mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs Thanks Daenyth, Yes, I agree with the article, but the concerns are limited to Internal File Separator ($IFS) issues. If you properly handle $IFS issues, like: OLDIFS=$IFS # (default is spacetabnewline: IFS=$' \t\n') IFS=$'\n' for i in $(ls); do echo whatever $i; done IFS=$OLDIFS # not really required if run in a script because your present # environment will be protected by execution in a subshell. If used # as a one-liner, just enclose your cli in parenthesis for the # same protection. i.e. '( your code )' forces your code to execute # in a subshell. In my instance: 01:13 alchemy:~/dt/compiz/compiz_11.0 l total 24 drwxr-xr-x 6 david dcr 4096 2010-05-17 23:56 ./ drwxr-xr-x 9 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:28 ../ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:24 i586/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-17 23:56 noarch/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:22 src/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:21 x86_64/ I would still expect my original command line to work. Aaron and Sergey nailed down where I messed up by putting my alias in /etc/bash.bashrc.local. Though I still don't understand why having it in /etc/bash.bashrc.local instead of ~/.bashrc makes a difference. That's what I need to learn. I'll poke around and report back if somebody doesn't answer it first. That's something I want to understand. Thanks. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On 05/19/2010 01:48 AM, Jan de Groot wrote: On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 01:41 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote: So the bottom line is don't alias 'ls'. And, I guess, the next question would be, how or where can I safely customize the behavior of ls without screwing myself again. Solution is simple: don't use ls for the for loops you're doing. I just tested it on my system, the colored files and directories give No such file or directory, which makes sense, as the variable contains ascii chars for color information. I would suggest using globbing, why would you use for i in $(ls); while you can use for i in *; Jan, Point well taken. I don't know how I fell into that trap. Globbing is the way to go. I guess it was just more logical to do for i in (the list); and when thinking about What gives me 'the list', the ls trap found another victim :p -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
Re: [arch-general] PulseAudio package group
On 19/05/2010, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: The problem with doing that is some packages will indeed have to *depend* and not just optdepend on PA. There are some cases where you can get away with it when there is no hard runtime dependency on the library in question. You can have them as makedepends and optdepends. You might want to check whether that is possible. Whatever it is, a group would be helpful. A lot of people are voluntarily entangled in the PA web because of some kind of confusion resulting from the number of add-ons. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
On 19/05/10 02:10, Thomas Bächler wrote: This file lacks some conflicts/provides, but you should be able to install it instead of kernel26-firmware. http://dev.archlinux.org/~thomas/linux-firmware-git-20100519-1-any.pkg.tar.xz Let me know what you think. Also, there have been some reports about missing ralink firmware files, those might be in here as well. I replaced both kernel26-firmware and radeon_ucode with this. The included radeon firmware works fine with my integrated HD 4200. Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. [1] http://paste.pocoo.org/show/215616/ [2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19519
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] PulseAudio package group
Hi Since I am just a comperativly inexperienced user, it took me some time to get pulseaudio working (Digging the forum to change the asound.conf, getting vlc to work with pulse by the aur-package). I think it would be great having a package group, with which I could install all this stuff at once, alongside with the necessary configuration (asound.conf). However I can't really assess the packaging problems, so if this isn't possible, bad luck. But I would really appreciate it. Thanks Benedikt On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:25 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: I could make PulseAudio installation significantly easier by putting specially-built packages (e.g. sdl-pulse, openal-pulse) into [community] and grouping them in a pulse group. This group would also include a pulse-asoundrc package containing a pulse-configured asound.conf, as well as depending on alsa-plugins. Should I go ahead with this? Any suggestions?
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB). How often does it need to be updated? We now (needlessly?) have the firmware package track the actual kernel package so it ends up getting re-downloaded a lot more often than probably necessary, so the above package, while large, would probably be updated less anyway (and would be an 'any' package?). -Dan
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
Am 19.05.2010 16:19, schrieb Dan McGee: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB). How often does it need to be updated? We now (needlessly?) have the firmware package track the actual kernel package so it ends up getting re-downloaded a lot more often than probably necessary, so the above package, while large, would probably be updated less anyway (and would be an 'any' package?). Everytime someone complains about a firmware file missing. Seriously, look at the commit log, it only had 23 commits this year: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=summary I guess we would upgrade it at most once a month. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:39 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 19.05.2010 16:19, schrieb Dan McGee: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB). How often does it need to be updated? We now (needlessly?) have the firmware package track the actual kernel package so it ends up getting re-downloaded a lot more often than probably necessary, so the above package, while large, would probably be updated less anyway (and would be an 'any' package?). Everytime someone complains about a firmware file missing. Seriously, look at the commit log, it only had 23 commits this year: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=summary I guess we would upgrade it at most once a month. +1 for replacing all firmware packages included in this one. I don't care about the few extra megabytes on my system. This saves us uploading and downloading a binary firmware package on every kernel update, generates less packages in the repositories and moves kernel26-firmware to an arch=any package. The only disadvantage is the 10MB extra size, but the advantages are bigger than that.
Re: [arch-general] PulseAudio package group
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:36 PM, b1 fo...@b1online.de wrote: Hi Since I am just a comperativly inexperienced user, it took me some time to get pulseaudio working (Digging the forum to change the asound.conf, getting vlc to work with pulse by the aur-package). I think it would be great having a package group, with which I could install all this stuff at once, alongside with the necessary configuration (asound.conf). So do I, not really complex, but you have to do it again when you re-install system or do it again for anyone else, which could be boring. However I can't really assess the packaging problems, so if this isn't possible, bad luck. But I would really appreciate it. I support this idea, and in fact I don't meet any problem with Fedora since version 11, which (I mean Fedora or pulseaudio) runs well on my wife's laptop, so I think it's time to adapt it someway. Thanks Benedikt On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:25 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: I could make PulseAudio installation significantly easier by putting specially-built packages (e.g. sdl-pulse, openal-pulse) into [community] and grouping them in a pulse group. This group would also include a pulse-asoundrc package containing a pulse-configured asound.conf, as well as depending on alsa-plugins. Should I go ahead with this? Any suggestions?
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:39 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 19.05.2010 16:19, schrieb Dan McGee: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1 and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve FS#19519 [2]. I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB). How often does it need to be updated? We now (needlessly?) have the firmware package track the actual kernel package so it ends up getting re-downloaded a lot more often than probably necessary, so the above package, while large, would probably be updated less anyway (and would be an 'any' package?). Everytime someone complains about a firmware file missing. Seriously, look at the commit log, it only had 23 commits this year: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=summary I guess we would upgrade it at most once a month. +1 for replacing all firmware packages included in this one. I don't care about the few extra megabytes on my system. This saves us uploading and downloading a binary firmware package on every kernel update, generates less packages in the repositories and moves kernel26-firmware to an arch=any package. The only disadvantage is the 10MB extra size, but the advantages are bigger than that. yes i agree too. kernel is big already with oodles of modules enabled by default to satisfy everyone, whats a few more MB to ensure that things like KMS (nearly commonplace) and friends work smoothly. there isn't a simple way (or reason) to needlessly break them [firmware] out into individual packages, as there isn't a way to effectively depend on the package (would have to start breaking out modules themselves into packages, no?, in order to build the dep tree?) C Anthony
[arch-general] NFS v3 file locking issue with OpenOffice
Am Thu, 13 May 2010 16:37:49 +0200 schrieb Andreas Radke a.ra...@arcor.de: upstream update 2.6.32.13. our gcc4.5 patch went upstream. -Andy Since I've updated my server from .27 lts kernel to .32 series I've run into a small but annoying issue. I'm running nfs v3 nothing special. my options in /etc/exports: /path/to/share IP(rw,async,no_root_squash) OpenOffice is no more able to open files in writable mode. Somehow the server fails to lock the file properly and OOo refuses to safe files / refused to open files in writable mode. It seems there have been file locking issues in the past with OOo and some other apps http://www.crazysquirrel.com/computing/debian/bugs/openoffice-over-nfs.jspx It happens with our Arch OOo pkg and also with a client running Ubuntu Lucid here. I'd rather like to fix this and don't want to step up to nfs v4 right now. Can somebody confirm my locking issue and that it's caused by .32 kernels? Any idea how to solve it? -Andy
[arch-general] Article about aircrack in the wiki
Hi, I don't know whether my memory is right on that, but as far as I can remember there was an article in the wiki describing how to setup and use the aircrack- ng suite. I can't find this one anymore :(. Therefore I suppose it has been deleted. Am I right on this? If so, was there any specific reason? Any legal issues? I can't imagine that nobody has written an article about these tools. Is it safe to do so, or are there any concerns that should discourage me? I'm not a lawyer, but as there is a quite good documentation on the project site (http://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=getting_started) it can't be that critical, can it? Normally you always have the possibility to say that you want to use it for educational purposes at home, at least from what I'm aware of. So is there any specific reason why there isn't such an article yet (but my memory tells me that there was one :)), or hasn't anyone thought of this until now? -- Best regards, Karol Babioch signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] phoronix: Is Arch faster than Ubuntu?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: Came across my reader today http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_arch_fasternum=1 Pretty neat. Showing boot-up time and other more noticeable waits would be a much better comparison; I think the benchmarks are not why people think Arch feels faster. Right but the reason I think this is interesting is that the data shows it is feels faster not is faster. I basically agree with everything that was said and will try to re-conciliate the different opinions : 1. This benchmark is not particularly useful, as we are often used with Phoronix. They are often not well chosen and/or with bad interpretation, so it often annoys people who know better about a specific software/project. 2. Phoronix's benchmarks have the merit to exist and to provide facts, as opposed to many users who claims X is faster than Y, and NEVER provide any facts/numbers/benchmarks, even when specifically asked. I saw it happening many times in Arch community over the time, so now we at least have some data to show them. So I would still thank phoronix for providing benchmarking tools and results, which are definitely useful and needed. IMO the most interesting benchmarks are the ones comparing different versions of the same software, but this would also better be made in collaboration with upstream developers, as these are probably the only people able to really make sense and explain results. In any cases, thanks for the link Aaron :)
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
On 05/19/2010 05:39 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
As a followup to a discussion on [arch-general] in the Linux 2.6.34
thread ([1] and others), I think we should do the following:
- Create a linux-firmware package from the linux-firmware.git tree.
- Make that package conflict and replace all other firmware that it
obsoletes:
replaces=('kernel26-firmware'
'ar9170-fw'
'iwlwifi-1000-ucode'
'iwlwifi-3945-ucode'
'iwlwifi-4965-ucode'
'iwlwifi-5000-ucode'
'iwlwifi-5150-ucode'
'iwlwifi-6000-ucode'
'rt2870usb-fw'
'rt2x00-rt61-fw'
'rt2x00-rt71w-fw')
All other firmware packages contain only files that are not part of
linux-firmware.
- Remove the firmware from the kernel26 PKGBUILD, only use the
linux-firmware package instead
I'm putting a package with the according conflicts/replaces to testing.
Please comment, test it thoroughly and give feedback.
[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013329.html
Maybe this is a little premature, or altogether irrelevant, but now that we're
reorganizing all of the firmware what can we expect in terms of its inclusion in
the initcpio?
Is there a direct relationship between modules and firmware so that just what's
needed can be loaded automatically? Is it too much to just take it all with a
'firmware' hook?
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
Am 20.05.2010 00:30, schrieb Matthew Monaco: Maybe this is a little premature, or altogether irrelevant, but now that we're reorganizing all of the firmware what can we expect in terms of its inclusion in the initcpio? Is there a direct relationship between modules and firmware so that just what's needed can be loaded automatically? Is it too much to just take it all with a 'firmware' hook? Required firmware is added to the initramfs automatically - at least the firmware files that are listed in 'modinfo' of the module in question. Beyond that, there is nothing we can do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
On 05/19/2010 06:40 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 20.05.2010 00:30, schrieb Matthew Monaco: Maybe this is a little premature, or altogether irrelevant, but now that we're reorganizing all of the firmware what can we expect in terms of its inclusion in the initcpio? Is there a direct relationship between modules and firmware so that just what's needed can be loaded automatically? Is it too much to just take it all with a 'firmware' hook? Required firmware is added to the initramfs automatically - at least the firmware files that are listed in 'modinfo' of the module in question. Beyond that, there is nothing we can do. Does anyone know what the point of that radeon hook in the AUR is then? All it does is add the radeon module and include the radeon firmware files - which I see are listed by 'modinfo radeon' anyway.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
Am 20.05.2010 00:49, schrieb Matthew Monaco: Does anyone know what the point of that radeon hook in the AUR is then? All it does is add the radeon module and include the radeon firmware files - which I see are listed by 'modinfo radeon' anyway. It has no point at all. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
On 05/19/2010 07:38 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 20.05.2010 00:49, schrieb Matthew Monaco: Does anyone know what the point of that radeon hook in the AUR is then? All it does is add the radeon module and include the radeon firmware files - which I see are listed by 'modinfo radeon' anyway. It has no point at all. In any event, my system is running fine with linux-firmware. Thanks.
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the case, replace ls with /bin/ls in the above and try again or if your REALLY lazy like me :) \ls the \ runs the real ls, not the aliased version. However, Aaron's way will always work, and is usually way I use commands in my scripts. IE: the full path, as many of our machines might have more than one grep, and I might have that aliased as well.
Re: [arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
you can also use env ls which I believe gets ls from the PATH -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
