Re: [arch-general] Installing createrepo/repoview on Arch Linux
On 09/14/2010 01:24 PM, David C. Rankin wrote: Here is a quick synopsis of what is required to install createrepo on Arch in case you need to provide an rpm repository for rpm based distros hosted on your Arch server: AUR Package Summary (in order to build/install): beecrypt rpm (THIS PKG IS ORPHANED, BUT STILL CURRENT FOR rpm-5.1.9) yum-metadata-parser (OUT OF DATE -- updated PKGBUILD below) python-iniparse yum (the 'depends' line in the PKGBUILD must be fixed - see below) yum-createrepo (OUT OF DATE -- updated PKGBUILD below) kid repoview Couple of questions: (1) Should we do a wiki page on this? (2) What do we do about the orphaned rpm package in AUR? Shouldn't that package have a maintainer? I'm not that skilled in packaging/patching or Makefiles so I wouldn't exactly feel comfortable taking it on, but with something as needed as rpm for handling repos that will be stored on Arch servers, this should definitely have somebody looking after it. What is the process for getting a new maintainer for it? -- 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
[arch-general] There's no need for acpid
Hi there, I discussed with someone else in an IRC channel that actually I have to use acpid for laptop-mode-tools if I want to have settings changed when I plug in AC. Well, actually there is no need of acpid for this. A simply shell script can do the same: #!/bin/bash while read event; do case $event in ac_adapter*) /usr/sbin/laptop_mode auto /dev/null 21 ;; esac done /proc/acpi/event So I put this script unter /usr/sbin (or something else, whatever) and start it in laptop-mode-tools initscript. Works perfectly and so I don't need acpid just for this little thing. Anyway isn't acpid a bit much for such simple things? I thought maybe somene else could find this useful, so I post this to you ;) Regards, Lukas -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Flexible IT. Geschäftsführer: Bernd Bönte, Boris Nalbach Amtsgericht München, HRB 173695 USt-ID: DE270819312
Re: [arch-general] [namcap] [PATCH] Check for packages that should be 'any'
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, David Campbell davek...@archlinux.us wrote: If a package has no elf files but is not 'any', throw a warning saying that the package could be 'any'. --- Namcap/anyelf.py | 18 ++ namcap-tags | 1 + 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/Namcap/anyelf.py b/Namcap/anyelf.py index f3414af..c037ff0 100644 --- a/Namcap/anyelf.py +++ b/Namcap/anyelf.py @@ -33,20 +33,22 @@ class package: def short_name(self): return anyelf def long_name(self): - return If package is 'any' architecture, check for ELF files + return Check for ELF files to see if a package should be 'any' + architecture This will be really ugly when it prints; you should just use a single quoted string. def prereq(self): return extract def analyze(self, pkginfo, data): ret = [[], [], []] - if pkginfo.arch and pkginfo.arch[0] != 'any': - return ret found_elffiles = [] - os.path.walk(data, scanelf, found_elffiles) - if len(found_elffiles) 0: - for i in found_elffiles: - ret[0].append((elffile-in-any-package %s, i)) - + + if pkginfo.arch and pkginfo.arch[0] == 'any': + if len(found_elffiles) 0: + for i in found_elffiles: + ret[0].append((elffile-in-any-package %s, i)) + else: + if len(found_elffiles) == 0: + ret[1].append((no-elffiles-and-not-any-package, ())) return ret def type(self): diff --git a/namcap-tags b/namcap-tags index acb8e9c..4040136 100644 --- a/namcap-tags +++ b/namcap-tags @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ missing-license :: Missing license missing-maintainer :: Missing Maintainer tag missing-checksums :: Missing checksums missing-url :: Missing url +no-elffiles-and-not-any-package :: No ELF files and not an any package Let's drop the 'and' from here to shorten it up. non-fhs-info-page %s :: Non-FHS info page (%s) found. Use /usr/share/info instead non-fhs-man-page %s :: Non-FHS man page (%s) found. Use /usr/share/man instead not-a-common-license %s :: %s is not a common license (it's not in /usr/share/licenses/common/) -- 1.7.1.1 Applied, made a few small changes as stated above. Sorry this got lost in the depths of the inbox.
[arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
You may have seen this, however it is interesting to spread the word: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-Linux http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-LinuxI hope this comes to the repositories soon…it is kind of sad, though, 'cause a great deal of people (including me) might use [multilib] just because of Flash. -- Rafael Beraldo http://devio.us/~revberaldo/
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rafael Beraldo rafaelluisbera...@gmail.com wrote: You may have seen this, however it is interesting to spread the word: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-Linux http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-LinuxI hope this comes to the repositories soon…it is kind of sad, though, 'cause a great deal of people (including me) might use [multilib] just because of Flash. It is in AUR already. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32072. As it is only a prerelease, it shouldn't be in the repos, though. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ---
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:14:22AM -0300, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rafael Beraldo rafaelluisbera...@gmail.com wrote: You may have seen this, however it is interesting to spread the word: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-Linux http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-LinuxI hope this comes to the repositories soon…it is kind of sad, though, 'cause a great deal of people (including me) might use [multilib] just because of Flash. It is in AUR already. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32072. As it is only a prerelease, it shouldn't be in the repos, though. The former 64-bit flash plugin was never anything but a pre-release. d
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
What's kind of sad is that people support and use adobes flash. Gnash might not work that well, but at least you'll kind of show support for free software. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Rafael Beraldo rafaelluisbera...@gmail.com wrote: You may have seen this, however it is interesting to spread the word: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-Linux http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/16/0340226/Adobe-Releases-New-64-bit-Flash-Plugin-For-Linux I hope this comes to the repositories soon…it is kind of sad, though, 'cause a great deal of people (including me) might use [multilib] just because of Flash. -- Rafael Beraldo http://devio.us/~revberaldo/ http://devio.us/%7Erevberaldo/
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
2010/9/16 Linus Eklöf kazchj...@gmail.com What's kind of sad is that people support and use adobes flash. Gnash might not work that well, but at least you'll kind of show support for free software. I would use gnash or lightspark, if they could be used together whit adobes flash like having some white list for video sites or somesort of analyzer that will firtsh go trought the flash show binary to see if it is 100% supported by gnash/... and if it isint then use the adobes version. I think that at the moment what most users need flash for are 100% flash only sites and games
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:19 AM, jesse jaara jesse.ja...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/16 Linus Eklöf kazchj...@gmail.com What's kind of sad is that people support and use adobes flash. Gnash might not work that well, but at least you'll kind of show support for free software. I would use gnash or lightspark, if they could be used together whit adobes flash like having some white list for video sites or somesort of analyzer that will firtsh go trought the flash show binary to see if it is 100% supported by gnash/... and if it isint then use the adobes version. I think that at the moment what most users need flash for are 100% flash only sites and games I have read that lightspark is getting pretty decent, although I have not tried it myself in awhile. It supposedly can/will fall back to gnash for sites that have issues. I too am looking forward to an adobe free experience, one way or another, as it's really the only blob left on my systems, and I'm dissatisfied with their quality and attitude toward Linux solutions. C Anthony [mobile]
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
On 16 September 2010 11:53, Linus Eklöf kazchj...@gmail.com wrote: What's kind of sad is that people support and use adobes flash. Gnash might not work that well, but at least you'll kind of show support for free software. Yes, using proprietary software is kind of sad but neither Gnash or Lightspark are really usable right now...Once in a while I test Lightspark and I am excited with it. How knows if someday it will replace Adobe's Flash? Now, I don't need to justify myself to anyone, however, I totally support free software both using and showing it off to people that are interested in it; my post here was just aiming practical aspects of using a computer, if you understand what I mean. What should one do when a college colleague sends they a damn doc? Should they answer “hey send me in odt or txt or some pure format!” -- or should they just use OpenOffice or Google Docs to open it and not bother people with ideology? Open source isn't something that tears apart good from bad people. Anyway, software is becoming more and more open nowadays, that's what I think, so these “ philosophical issues” are hopefully going to disappear. I'm sorry if I went off-topic. -- Rafael Beraldo http://devio.us/~revberaldo/
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 09/15/2010 12:20 AM, Fess wrote: On 19:13 Tue 14 Sep , C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Waydedisposa...@konnichi.com wrote: here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the cache) use a local mirror for: to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i simply get the packages from the master, cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact. shared cache won't solve that sure... but there are better solutions: ) if you can get it from master, then it sounds like you have a LAN connection; tunnel a connection thru master... ) if you have a LAN, what can't some machines have access anyway? ) if you don't have a LAN, you are manually moving packages? you could do that without a local mirror ) if you have a LAN, but _cannot_ allow some access to the net, then use a different method like a caching proxy local mirror = quick/easy crutch to avoid better utilization of local/peer resources i use a homebrew proxy/cache solution for my home, works fine. one machine pretends to be a repo, others look to it for packages... easy. i'm not using this exact version now, but i implemented this (rather crappily) while first learning python: pacproxy (or something that vaguely resembles an apt-proxy clone) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=87115 now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because: 1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror. 2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server. 3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for all the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror. now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local mirror causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these problems actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad with not much of a valid reason and nothing being done to further educate us the users. i don't think it's even about whether or not it _is_ causing a problem, and more a preemptive move to discourage naive implementations. sure, if you have a heterogeneous environment of 200 machines, then a local mirror probably isn't too bad an idea... but it still isn't needed, as faster/better/cheaper methods are available. in my opinion, if you're not publicly seeding your mirror, then you don't need it; else you probably only want it due to an extreme case of laziness. sure maybe mirror XYZ can handle constant sync's from everyone looking at it... but really, do them a favor, and don't; it might piss them off :-). You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is that ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the same as I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have been said the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it and these alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best. yeah i don't really know the politics here, or have even seen the script. in my own experience back in the day syncing ubuntu repos (for easy install at remote locations from large USB key when client requirements are unknown)... you likely flat out don't need it, and there are _very_ few legitimate use cases for it (the parenthesized use case above is about the best one i know). all i'm suggesting is that just because you can and it's easy doesn't mean you should. but hey, i don't run a mirror, and extreme leeching won't affect me, so ultimately i could care less; if i did though, i would monitor for this kind of crap... i mean, doesn't the official arch mirror impose similar restrictions? just do you part to not be excessive. does one check out the entire library on the possibility of reading 10 books? C Anthony I think, i know(and others, who use this method) better what i'm doing, and why i am doing it. So, i tell you once more - community think, that this is useful. People, who say Hey, man! I have server, and rsync installed, add me please to the list of 3rd party mirrors know what they do. If they offer this service - they think it helps. If they would have 'tiny pipe'(or something else tiny) they wouldn't do it. So, i still don't understand why opinion of community ignored. Ok a few things here 1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted 2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you* don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted bandwidth! 3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point 1 in mind) 4. @Fess you and a few other people do not make the community. 5. The majority of the community will agree that hosting a local mirror is silly
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: [..] Ok a few things here 1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted not sure where you were going with that but i feel like you've left a bit off of that sentence. 2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you* don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted bandwidth! you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. 3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point 1 in mind) since i already payed for that bandwidth and utilize it for other purposes it is in fact free. 4. @Fess you and a few other people do not make the community. not sure what point you're trying to make here 5. The majority of the community will agree that hosting a local mirror is silly considering that there are alternatives! the majority of people at least in the western cultures will agree that paedophilia is sick. the majority of these people don't know what paedophilia is. again not sure where you're going with that so i thought I'd make some wild pointless claims as well. 6. I am quite sure that mirror operators are not and will not be happy with users downloading gigs of data a month so they can have their own local mirror. when you become a mirror operator or bring actual evidence to the table you will have a say in this. 7. Remember, the local mirrors are generously mirroring for us. They are under *no obligation* to do so! Treat them with respect! this doesn't make any sense. 8. If point 1 applies, then those people should be more than capable of producing their own scripts. we are. but you see, the point you decided to side-step is that we're being told that the existing script was bad, now, if it was bad fair enough but no-one can(or will) tell us what was so wrong about it; result: you're now forcing everyone that needs to create their own script to do so and thus risk causing the same problems the old script cause because as I've stated multiple times - no-one is telling us(me) what the problems are with that script. it's all well and good to say this or that is bad but if you're not going to tell anyone what's bad about it then we'd all be better off if you hadn't opened your mouth at all.
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 09/16/2010 02:59 PM, Nathan Wayde wrote: On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: [..] Ok a few things here 1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted not sure where you were going with that but i feel like you've left a bit off of that sentence. 2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you* don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted bandwidth! you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. 3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point 1 in mind) since i already payed for that bandwidth and utilize it for other purposes it is in fact free. You most certainly do not pay for the Mirror's bandwidth! Just look at this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ 4. @Fess you and a few other people do not make the community. not sure what point you're trying to make here 5. The majority of the community will agree that hosting a local mirror is silly considering that there are alternatives! the majority of people at least in the western cultures will agree that paedophilia is sick. the majority of these people don't know what paedophilia is. again not sure where you're going with that so i thought I'd make some wild pointless claims as well. 6. I am quite sure that mirror operators are not and will not be happy with users downloading gigs of data a month so they can have their own local mirror. when you become a mirror operator or bring actual evidence to the table you will have a say in this. Again look here: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ or ask any admin in charge of bandwidth operations. Aaron if you are reading this, would mind sharing the bandwidth cost for the arch servers? 7. Remember, the local mirrors are generously mirroring for us. They are under *no obligation* to do so! Treat them with respect! this doesn't make any sense. 8. If point 1 applies, then those people should be more than capable of producing their own scripts. we are. but you see, the point you decided to side-step is that we're being told that the existing script was bad, now, if it was bad fair enough but no-one can(or will) tell us what was so wrong about it; result: you're now forcing everyone that needs to create their own script to do so and thus risk causing the same problems the old script cause because as I've stated multiple times - no-one is telling us(me) what the problems are with that script. it's all well and good to say this or that is bad but if you're not going to tell anyone what's bad about it then we'd all be better off if you hadn't opened your mouth at all.
Re: [arch-general] Update: [semi-solved] community/e-svn 51937-1 BROKEN? themes fail screen resolution fail etc...
It would appear that on Sep 16, David C. Rankin did say: Since you seem to like e17 themes, don't forget to check: http://verdegal37.deviantart.com/gallery/ Agust does most of the themes for e17-stuff.org Well it's not so much that I LIKE themes, as that I strongly dislike the default theme (especially dark buttons that don't indicate which one the keyboard is pointing at. I can't blame the Rasterman for not wanting to spend the time to make keyboard navigation easier, he LIKES using the mouse, and he does an awful lot of work on the things he wants to do. But as long as I'm going to need to use themes to accomplish that I might as well find some that I like the panels, menus and pop-ups from. The main graphic don't matter as I use my own specific background images for each of my 12 task specific desktop areas... A glance at the background tells me if I'm in the right workspace... But more themes to pick over are always welcome. So thanks -- | ~^~ ~^~ | * * Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^J(tWdy)P | \___/ jtw...@ttlc.net
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 16/09/10 20:10, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: On 09/16/2010 02:59 PM, Nathan Wayde wrote: On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: [..] Ok a few things here 1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted not sure where you were going with that but i feel like you've left a bit off of that sentence. 2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you* don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted bandwidth! you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. 3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point 1 in mind) since i already payed for that bandwidth and utilize it for other purposes it is in fact free. You most certainly do not pay for the Mirror's bandwidth! Just look at this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ my contract said I paid for it... [...] 6. I am quite sure that mirror operators are not and will not be happy with users downloading gigs of data a month so they can have their own local mirror. when you become a mirror operator or bring actual evidence to the table you will have a say in this. Again look here: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ or ask any admin in charge of bandwidth operations. Aaron if you are reading this, would mind sharing the bandwidth cost for the arch servers? [...] At first I typed out a reply but I deleted it because this thread is already dead so I will simply restate my question that no-one has an answer to. What were the issues with that wiki page and the script. I'd like to know so I don't cause these *problems* for Tier-1 mirrors I sync from as I have to implement my own script which is based on the bad script that was in the wiki.
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
You most certainly do not pay for the Mirror's bandwidth! Just look at this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ my contract said I paid for it... What? Sure, you may pay for n GB of download, but the mirror still has to pay for n GB of _upload_ in order to serve it to you. -- Tavian Barnes
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. But can we at least say that grabbing packages without using them is wasting mirror bandwidth, and thus not something we want. In fact, something that should be frowned upon?
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:16 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:54:16PM +0200, Stefan Erik Wilkens wrote: On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. But can we at least say that grabbing packages without using them is wasting mirror bandwidth, and thus not something we want. In fact, something that should be frowned upon? It sounds like this Nathan fella doesn't grasp the concept that he pays for his own bandwidth and the mirror operator has to pay for the bandwidth used by the mirror server. Sure Nathan can squander his bandwidth however he wants but the mirror operators have to spread their bandwidth around for all of us to get our normal updates and of course, the cost has to be shouldered by someone. While my initial reaction to the thread was to do exactly this (point out that Nathan does not seem to understand that mirrors have to pay for bandwidth as well, and also that the linked article was obviously not read) I think its a bit out-of-line to dismiss him as this 'Nathan fella'. Where I come from such terms would only be used on a brat or delinquent, slightly derogatory in my opinion. Not a comment on the CONTENT but on the STYLE =).
Re: [arch-general] Spell Checking in Emacs
I found some more information concerning the ispell problem with emacs. It seems that if I do ispell-buffer, region, or word on clean data (correctly spelled), I don't get any errors in the mini buffer and in fact, ispell-word even tells me the word is correct. Fine - that works as it should. However, as soon as there is a miss-spelled word to report, then is when I get the error in the mini-buffer saying that the text is read-only. It would appear that maybe ispell can't open a buffer to display the word choices. I don't know emacs lisp well enough to try and debug this thing but it's beginning to look like nobody else here is getting the problem or doesn't use this combination with emacs. Any other ideas out there?
Re: [arch-general] Spell Checking in Emacs
Steve Holmes writes: Do I have to set up anything in advance in order to use ispell in emacs with the aspell program? See the message below for the full story. I can't get past this read-only problem. (setq ispell-program-name (executable-find aspell)) HTH -- Ashish SHUKLA | GPG: F682 CDCC 39DC 0FEA E116 20B6 C746 CFA9 E74F A4B0 freebsd.org!ashish | http://people.freebsd.org/~ashish/ Avoid Success At All Costs !! pgpPN34fOatah.pgp Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] kernel compilation makeflags
When I am compiling the kernel (in the chroot). My -j4 makeflag is getting lost. Is this expected?
Re: [arch-general] kernel compilation makeflags
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:25 -0400, Matthew Monaco wrote: When I am compiling the kernel (in the chroot). My -j4 makeflag is getting lost. Is this expected? Is it set in makepkg.conf within the chroot?
Re: [arch-general] Adobe Releases New 64-bit Flash Plugin For Linux
On Thu 16 Sep 2010 16:53 +0200, Linus Eklöf wrote: What's kind of sad is that people support and use adobes flash. Gnash might not work that well, but at least you'll kind of show support for free software. What's really sad is that so many sites rely on flash in the first place.
Re: [arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki
On 17/09/10 00:21, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:16 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:54:16PM +0200, Stefan Erik Wilkens wrote: On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth. But can we at least say that grabbing packages without using them is wasting mirror bandwidth, and thus not something we want. In fact, something that should be frowned upon? It sounds like this Nathan fella doesn't grasp the concept that he pays for his own bandwidth and the mirror operator has to pay for the bandwidth used by the mirror server. Sure Nathan can squander his bandwidth however he wants but the mirror operators have to spread their bandwidth around for all of us to get our normal updates and of course, the cost has to be shouldered by someone. While my initial reaction to the thread was to do exactly this (point out that Nathan does not seem to understand that mirrors have to pay for bandwidth as well, and also that the linked article was obviously not read) I think its a bit out-of-line to dismiss him as this 'Nathan fella'. Where I come from such terms would only be used on a brat or delinquent, slightly derogatory in my opinion. Not a comment on the CONTENT but on the STYLE =). like I said, I'd deleted my reply but here I'll state it again... I already run a mirror for other purposes, if the Tier-1 has a problem with that then they should block arm.konnichi.com . since I already run that for other purposes I sync from arm.konnichi.com - in-case you didn't realise I own it. I'm a idiot, that much is no secret, so maybe someone can enlighten me... like I said already, I already run a mirror for other purposes, if I want to waste the bandwidth of my mirror that's my business because I already paid for it, but the important question is the one that's always ignored in favour of petty politics and that is: I want to know specifically what was wrong with that script so I as a mirror operator can take the necessary measures to make sure I'm not abusing the Tier-1 from which I sync.
Re: [arch-general] kernel compilation makeflags
On 09/16/2010 10:27 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:25 -0400, Matthew Monaco wrote: When I am compiling the kernel (in the chroot). My -j4 makeflag is getting lost. Is this expected? Is it set in makepkg.conf within the chroot? Yes. I even threw it right in the PKGBUILD too to be sure.
