Re: [arch-general] dependency problem in avahi package?
On Tue 2008-10-21 16:46, Henri Häkkinen wrote: > Hello, > > Is there a dependency problem in the avahi package? Avahi got installed as a > dependency of VLC in my system and now I am geting this error message when > running `pkg-config --list-all`: > > Package qt-mt was not found in the pkg-config search path. > Perhaps you should add the directory containing `qt-mt.pc' > to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable > Package 'qt-mt', required by 'avahi-qt3', not found > [...] I filed a bug report about it (18) months ago: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6861 But it has been decided to do nothing :) It's probably an upstream bug anyway (and I don't remember reporting it to avahi devs), so it's not like I'm complaining about it. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino
Re: [arch-general] Arch-Sheriff - A script to match NetBSD vulnerability database against Arch Linux packages
On Thu 2008-09-11 14:48, Hugo Doria wrote: > Hi everyone, > [...] > And, please, tell me what you think about this. Any suggestion is welcome. You may want to remove the "dashed" border, it's fugly :) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino pgpCqsDhYephA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Xorg-server 1.5RC6 enters testing
On Sun 2008-08-31 20:37, Jan de Groot wrote:
> Xorg-server 1.5RC6 (1.4.99.906) enters tesing. This version of
> xorg-server includes input hotplugging using hal, better EXA support and
> less memory usage.
> Note that this version requires an upgrade of all videodrivers.
> All videodrivers shipped with X.Org have been rebuilt to reflect this
> change. Nvidia drivers don't seem to need a rebuild, while AMD's
> catalyst drivers don't support the new X.Org version. Fglrx users should
> not upgrade to this version.
>
> Please give this version of X.Org an extensive test run and report bugs.
OK, this is not a bug report and I have not even tested it yet, but
reading the PKGBUILD I found that for some reason a file (
/usr/lib/xorg/modules/libwfb.so ) is created by the scriptlets; in this
way pacman doesn't know which package owns it. I have to admit it's a
pretty minor annoyance, since it is removed by the post_remove function,
but it seems to me an useless complication. Unless I'm missing
something, you can get rid of the xorg-server.install file and put:
ln -sf libwfb.so.1.4 ${pkgdir}/usr/lib/xorg/modules/libwfb.so
at the end of the PKGBUILD.
Cheers,
--
Alessio (molok) Bolognino
pgpqrhutsVi5V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group
On Sat 2008-08-30 17:52, Karolina Lindqvist wrote: > lördagen den 30 augusti 2008 skrev Alessio Bolognino: > > > > This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I > > > would vote vor vim and keep nano. [... more nonsense ] > > > > v > > * > > ==> * THIS* < > > ==> *IS * < > > ==> * MADNESS! * < > > * > > ^ > > > > :%s/Pierre Schmitz/Wuss Infidel/g > > :wq! > > Please not vim, since if you don't know vim, you very fast get stuck. I just > installed and tried vim, and first it beeped on any key pressed. Then somehow > it stopped, and I could not exit instead. I tried CTRL-C CTRL-C, and it > said ":quit to exit", but it did not work either. So "killall vim" was the > way to exit. Yes, madness is the right word. > > nano is more logical. Everything you type inserts, and i has a menu at the > bottom always. So you can figure out he first time. > > vim is a speciality editor, since you need to know it to use it. emacs is > similar there. Both require you to learn it to do even simple things. And > when installing a system, you need something so that you can edit the files > to get started. For a novice there should be an editor that is > self-explanatory, and it appears that nano can work there. > > But then I don't care since I anyway do: > pacman -Rs vim nano Well, I was just trolling; it's very likely that both nano and vi(m) will stay in base, so this discussion doesn't make sense, but vi is not just "an editor", it's the standard UNIX editor. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpKDxpEahrcn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group
On Fri 2008-08-29 23:42, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Am Freitag 29 August 2008 12:27:50 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > > - nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in > > core, remove it from base. > > This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I > would vote vor vim and keep nano. [... more nonsense ] | v * ==> * THIS* < ==> *IS * < ==> * MADNESS! * < * ^ | :%s/Pierre Schmitz/Wuss Infidel/g :wq! -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino
Re: [arch-general] ? regarding latest Dont Panic updates, and KDE4
On Wed 2008-07-30 17:18, Daenyth Blank wrote: > > The KDEmod repo is a possibility. A couple of things give me pause about > > using it though: 1) it's not really "stock" KDE packages; they're split > > into modules; they're heavily patched; etc., and > > Just to clarify, KDEmod uses only 2 patches: > - The background of the splash screen, it says "KDEmod 4.1" rather > than "KDE 4.1" > - There is a KDEmod label in the KDE about dialogs > > http://kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5300#p5300 I think David was talking about KDEmod3, which *is* heavily patched. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpq3SjZTGw5P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Bad url field in gmp PKGBUILD
On Tue 2008-07-15 17:43, Gustavo A. Gómez Farhat wrote: > Hello. It seems that the url field of the gmp package is outdated -gives a > 404 error-. The right link is http://gmplib.org/ It would be better to submit bug reports in the bug-tracker: http://bugs.archlinux.org In this way people can comment it, submit patches and the maintainer is happier because he won't forget about the report 15 seconds later. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp5CC8J0OZM1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64
On Tue 2008-07-08 23:38, RedShift wrote: > Thomas Bächler wrote: > [...] >> Now, again, you gave me a list of ideological reasons not to do it, but >> where exactly is the point where this damages your "pure" system >> technically? > > It's about the technical purity. It's this that makes us different > from the other distro's. Otherwise we're just on the road to the next > ubuntu. And if you really want 32 bit stuff running on x86-64, just > use a 32 bit chroot and don't bother with the multilib stuff. Well, I see a lot of lib32-* packages in the [community] repo, this means people do want this stuff; at the same time, lib32 packages kind of suck (just read a PKGBUILD to find out why). Arch always provided closed-source software too, so there is no such "purity" to maintain. Thomas proposed to create an ad-hoc repo, so the *-32bit won't even pollute the official repos, I don't see how cleaner this could be; If you don't enable it, then it won't affect your system at all. P.s. There should be a Godwin's-like Law for the phrase "we are on the road to Ubuntu"... -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgprvoPPwfeCH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Firefox 3 on latest update of Don't Panic question
On Mon 2008-06-23 23:23, Nigel Henry wrote: > I'm just about to update one of my 2 instances of Don't Panic. Firefox 3 is > going to be installed. I'd had problems playing a radio stream from a radio > station in the Channel Islands using Bon Echo, so downloaded and installed > another instance of Firefox from the Mozilla site, and installed it > in /usr/local, where I normally install Firefox. This ran the stream from the > site ok. I then changed the identity of Bon Echo to Firefox, and this too ran > the stream ok. The site obviously had some problems with the Bon Echo > identity. > > The question is though. If I go ahead with the upgrade of Firefox/Bon Echo to > 3.0-1, is it still going to play well with the Firefox I installed from the > Mozilla site (version 2.0.0.12). At the moment they are both happy to share > the same files in ~/, and both use the same addons. > > For info my current Bon Echo version is 2.0.0.14. > > I havn't tried Firefox 3 yet, so it may be interesting, but all the same, > don't want to screw anything up. > > Whatever it's like, it can't be as bad as all the complaints I've seen > regarding KDE4 on the Fedora, and Kubuntu lists. Saying that though, new > stuff always gets a lot of feedback, both positive, and negative. To me it seems like the site you are visiting handle Firefox in a special way, but since your browser use the "Bon Echo" user agent, the site doesn't do what it's supposed to. You can try to change your user agent with an addon like this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59 HTH, -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpcIaYOYpwBC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Firebug FF extension won't upgrade with FF3.0
On Mon 2008-06-23 16:23, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old > version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to > upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page > (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843) tells me I need to > upgrade Firefox to use the add-on. Anyone know what's wrong and/or a > workaround? You can try to disable firefox version checking: 1. Go to about:config 2. Right Click, New>Boolean "extensions.checkCompatibility" 3. set it to false 4. Right Click, New>Boolean "extensions.checkUpdateSecurity" 5. set it to false too 6. Restart Firefox 7. ??? 8. Profit! -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgplsbFwuqOE4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding http user/group to filesystems
On Mon 2008-06-23 18:48, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote: > On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote: > > I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it > > yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch, > > myself. That is - install some crap and it works out-of-the-box in a > > pretty decent manner. It's a very small stretch from "sane defaults" > > to "secure defaults". Unless you think sane != secure. > > so this is the official announcment that the vanilla-style-do-it-yourself for > professional engineers and manual readers is no more, and that in future > there will be rather debian-style-out-of-the-box solutions for those who > want it to "just work" ? > I'm fine with that new way. I'm going to look for a different distro then > instead of having to unpatch more and more packages. I just would like to > have a clear signal finally. The back and forth between those different > styles is really painfull for somone who has to actually maintain a few > dozens of machines. > I guess you can run your systems easy and secure with the debian style, but > you have to have a different kind of personality then me. > thanks I don't want to talk about the "philosophy" of the distro, but I'd like to know what's the security issue in having a dedicated user/group for web servers. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgp0tpi2eVHIr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Will Firefox 3 be brought into extra ?
On Wed 2008-06-18 21:39, Jeffrey Parke wrote: > Patrick Burroughs wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 19:04, Alessio Bolognino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu 2008-06-19 08:52, Emmanuel Benisty wrote: >>> >>>> FTR, 3.0rc2 is 3.0 >>>> >>> IIRC 3.0rc3 is 3.0 >>> >> >> 3.0rc3 is identical to 3.0rc2 except on OS X. > someone just got owned i think someone is adding nothing to the discussion and doesn't know how to bottom-post i think -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgp0lekkaiIXT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Will Firefox 3 be brought into extra ?
On Thu 2008-06-19 08:52, Emmanuel Benisty wrote: > FTR, 3.0rc2 is 3.0 IIRC 3.0rc3 is 3.0 -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpewTR37saQw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] ion3 policy
On Wed 2008-06-18 22:59, Jan de Groot wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:10 +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > > Hi, All! > > > > I forgot which decision was made about ion3 > > > > Can I add it into community if I'll update it quickly? > > If you get ill (yes, getting a real life is what we call ill too ;)) and > can't update the package within 2 weeks after release, you're screwed > because you're violating the license. > I wouldn't make ion3 available as binary package for this single reason. The license says 4 weeks (it's still a PITA to maintain though :) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpfavKf2KqHf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Dealing with Info documentation
I recall a recent thread in arch-dev-public about a new policy about info docs; I think devs decided to include info docs in the new packages, but I'm not 100% sure. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgplw417JSyC9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?
On Wed 2008-06-11 11:28, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alessio Bolognino > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed 2008-06-11 18:05, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > >> I've a small dumb question. > >> Why not use official branded version when there are many licensing > >> problems? According to KISS and Arch philosophy (use upstream apps and > >> not to patch unless necessary) this should be a good way. > > > > But what happens if we *have* to apply a patch for some reason (as we > > have to do, right now)? Should we change the package name? And if then > > we don't need that patch anymore because it's merged upstream, should we > > have to change back to the trademarked name? That sounds messy. > > If you want the official build, you are welcome to download it direct > from mozilla and install it. That, however, is not the one we > distribute - you have a choice, you don't have to use what we provide I was just trying to say that if we use the official branded version, then we can not apply a patch whenever we want, and that's bad; indeed I support the decision to distribute the not branded build. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpPdiNB354vf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?
On Wed 2008-06-11 18:05, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > I've a small dumb question. > Why not use official branded version when there are many licensing > problems? According to KISS and Arch philosophy (use upstream apps and > not to patch unless necessary) this should be a good way. But what happens if we *have* to apply a patch for some reason (as we have to do, right now)? Should we change the package name? And if then we don't need that patch anymore because it's merged upstream, should we have to change back to the trademarked name? That sounds messy. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpZUmp9xCPfM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?
On Tue 2008-06-10 22:52, Dan McGee wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Alessio Bolognino > > [...] > > Sure we name our package firefox- after the binary named firefox > contained within. When they fix their build process to name the > unbranded binary differently, perhaps we can adjust our package name > accordingly. OK, it sounds reasonable for me :) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpzdqYxtFukc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?
On Wed 2008-06-11 05:46, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote: > There is a thing that I have never understood: we ship the Firefox > package not branded, for the well known issues with the licensing of the > artwork, and that's fine; but are we sure we can name that package > "firefox" ? If you ask it to me, I think we can not: > > Mike Connor (a Mozilla guy :) said here [1]: > "Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same > trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're > free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser > Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo > and other artwork. > [...] > If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the > branding." > > Mozilla may say that we are "lying" to users, because the name is named > firefox, but it doesn't contain Firefox. > > Discuss! And I just found this old bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5795 I don't know why I missed it the first time I searched for it. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpQORYiHOmp7.pgp Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?
There is a thing that I have never understood: we ship the Firefox package not branded, for the well known issues with the licensing of the artwork, and that's fine; but are we sure we can name that package "firefox" ? If you ask it to me, I think we can not: Mike Connor (a Mozilla guy :) said here [1]: "Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork. [...] If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the branding." Mozilla may say that we are "lying" to users, because the name is named firefox, but it doesn't contain Firefox. Discuss! P.S. I didn't filed a bug report yet because I want to discuss this here. P.P.S Please don't hate me. References: [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpyMmpGC07ue.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Tool to stop and start services? (Don't Panic)
On Thu 2008-05-22 11:09, Travis Willard wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Nigel Henry > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On my Fedora installs there is a GUI for stopping and starting services, and > > also the option of using chkconfig on the CLI. On my Debian installs, I > > installed sysv-rc-conf, which runs on the CLI, and allows you to stop and > > start services. > > > > Is there anything similar that I could use on my Archlinux install? > > > > Thanks for any help. > > I can't recall any such tool offhand, though the discussion certainly > has come up before. What's wrong with /etc/rc.d/service stop and > /etc/rc.d/service start? I wrote two tiny patches to have some kind of smart completion, see: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8481 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8491 The idea is to do: # /etc/rc.d/networkmanager [TAB] and have a completion with the possible actions. IIRC it also works doing: # service [TAB] [TAB] the first TAB completes with the available services and the second with the action. Cheers, -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgp4BGIFqvMld.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Anyway to tranlate installer?
On Mon 2008-05-19 11:22 , Justin Gx wrote: > gan lu wrote: > > I hope I can, or I will report a bug for tracking, thanks. > > > > Not being able to translate the installer into your language proper does > not qualify as a bug. It would be best if you left the bug tracker for > tracking serious, *real*, bugs - like systems that freeze for no > apparent reason, slow video after a package upgrade etc... Indeed, it's a feature request ( http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10425 ) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpkgOo4GwxZe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Problem installing webcam
On Thu 2008-05-15 21:33 , Mordechai Peller wrote: > Jon Kristian Nilsen wrote: >> well did you load the correct module then? > If the module isn't included in the kernel, probably not. Which module > should I have loaded? >> What's the output of lspci ? Err... not very useful. Anyway, your webcam *could* be supported by this project: https://groups.google.com/group/microdia/web/testing-microdia-driver-draft Just google harder :) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgp6Qji3szMtj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] policy on desktop files?
On Thu 2008-05-08 10:06 , Ryan Sims wrote: > We needn't get bogged down in another "is this the ARCH WAY?!?!" > conversation here; I swear I don't want to. > I don't think it needs to be a policy decision. If > neither Arch nor upstream want to deal with .desktop files (and they > both seem to have their reasons), would it be possible to host some > space somewhere that users could post their own? It wouldn't need to > be Arch-hosted, perhaps this is a sf project waiting to happen; sort > of a searchable repository for orphaned .desktop files? I'd be happy > to go download .desktops from somewhere if they aren't already > included. This patch-phobia is getting ludicrous: if an application with a GUI, that users expect to be find in the menus, doesn't have a .desktop file, the maintainer should include it in the package AND submit it upstream. A repository for .desktop? Nonsense. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpnzK9Crhi1F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] ClamAV should be update to 0.93
On Sun 2008-05-04 12:47 , Tino Reichardt wrote: > * pyther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Tino Reichardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hello list, > > >> > > >> clamav should be updated. > > > > > > Why does the update of clamav take so long ? > > > > > > Should I build a new package ? > > > > > Because the developers have a life, if you need a new package use abs > > and compile it. > > If they don't have the time to be a maintainer for some package, they > shouldn't be the maintainer of it! > > My time is also short and thats the reason why I am no trusted user or > the maintainer of packages like clamav. Being a security update it should be somewhat "high priority", if the maintainer didn't update it yet is because he simply don't have the time to do so (and test it). Your whining is not helping anyone; bear in mind that the number of devs/TUs is limited and they have to manage a huge number of packages. If you want to help someway, you could update the package, test it and send the sources (PKGBUILD and other stuff) to the maintainer or maybe even in this mailing list. tl;dr : STFU. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgptQuCRFvEbS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Any place where changes in testing are announced?
On Mon 2008-04-28 16:32 , Scott Horowitz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Alessio Bolognino > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually there is the support for packages' changelog, but few maintainers > > write > > them. > > Wouldn't changelogs more reflect upstream changes than Arch packaging changes? Pacman's changelog support was added to reflect "package's changes", not "upstream changes"; that's what frugalware devs are doing, and they use (almost) the same package manager. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgp7xEmyEPKjf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Any place where changes in testing are announced?
On Tue 2008-04-29 00:17 , Peter Galiovsky wrote: > [...] > I was just curious if there is any single place where, for example, > changelogs for packages can be found. > > Maybe it could be created automatically from SVN log messages. > > (Yeah, I know, I can implement it if I really want it.) Actually there is the support for packages' changelog, but few maintainers write them. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpIcY8cFHNLJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
On Mon 2008-04-07 00:07 , Thomas Bächler wrote: > RedShift schrieb: >> Thomas Bächler wrote: >>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues: >>> >>> 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit. >> >> What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have that >> mounted? So instead of modified fstab I'd have to mess with rc.sysinit >> everytime the initscripts get upgraded? This is the same discussion as >> with moving lo to rc.sysinit instead of leaving it in rc.conf. Uterly >> pointless. > > The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely > useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface). > > However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational > reasons not to hardcode devpts? Thomas, if you are afraid that users could remove that line from fstab, why don't you just put a "# Warning, do not remove these lines unless you really know what you are doing" or something like that? I think this will reduce complexity of rc.sysinit (not very much, I have to admit :) Anyway, this thread is gone crazy, I hate when people attack devs for a minor issue like this one: whatever Thomas and the other devs will decide to do, it will be fine for me and should be fine for everyone. Seriously, this won't ever affect anyone's system. This thread started with "should I edit one line in a file?" and ended with "ZOMG, the ubuntu revolution is coming, arch way for teh win, I hate where Arch is going, oldfags > newfags". -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpKs2f1nrsUK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [English] New Distro - Can't Read German
On Tue 2008-04-01 09:22 , bardo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ab morgen werden auch die Mailinglisten auf deutsch umgestellt. Ich > > schlage vor ihr lernt ohne Babelfish deutsch zu sprechen. > > Keine Gegenstände aus dem Fenster werfen! Senfpulver oder Senfmehl besteht aus gemahlenen, meist weißen Senfkörnern. Besonders verbreitet ist es in der englischen Küche. Falls es nicht mitgekocht wird, wird es mit Wasser zu einer Paste verrührt, die ähnlich wie Tafelsenf verwendet wird. Senfpulver kann auch Bestandteil von Currypulver sein!!! -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB pgpa7kQiF88xA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [English] New Distro - Can't Read German
On Mon 2008-03-31 19:32 , Dan McGee wrote: > [...] > We are not dropping internationalization support- we have long been > one of the best distros for this. You will still have English-language > manpages and everything else. However, our site will be primarily in > German from this point out, so you may have a bit more help when > troubleshooting problems, etc. Just as "de_DE" was available before, > "en_US" will still be available to most programs. Ze German Uber Alles! -- Alessio Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
On Wed 2008-03-26 16:46 , Jan de Groot wrote: > [...] > If patching is no longer allowed, get ready for a time where packages are > stuck in testing for ages because upstream broke it. Get ready to run a distro > that breaks your system on every pacman -Syu because upgrade paths are not > handled. Yes, this is win win win I guess. > > If we want to go this way, I consider myself as ex-developer and switch to > another distribution or operating system that just works and gives me the > power to do things the right way. Instead of building packages for people that > tell me I'm doing the wrong thing, I'll do upstream software development, in > this case GNOME. I think we are overrating the problem here. I never saw in Arch's packages patches applied just for fun, or to add useless features. Most of the patches are to make software compile with the new release of gcc, to fix broken makefiles and the like. One of the few packages with a lot of patches is the kernel, but most of them only add hardware support, e.g. I have no idea why mactel patches aren't merged in the vanilla tree, but I'd like to boot Arch on my macbook anyway. IMHO the actual maintainer of kernel26 is doing a good job. If someone wants a kernel26-zomgvanillaistehbest , he can remove all the patches and create the packages by himself. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
