Re: [arch-general] No updates in a while - Is this the 'untiered mirror' thing?
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:37 AM, David C. Rankin < drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > >It is rare I go a week without some type of update. My last update > was: > > [2010-07-25 04:49] upgraded wavegain (1.2.8-1 -> 1.2.8-2) > > Looking at archdev-public, there is a 7/24 "no more untiered mirrors" post > from Roman about the need to shut down mirrors. Is this what is behind no > more updates for me? If so, what do I need to change in my mirror list, > pacman.conf, etc. to make sure I can get updates again? > >If it is just because Arch is perfect and there will no longer be a > need for any updates -- I'm good with that too. Just let me know :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 > https://www.archlinux.de/?page=MirrorStatus http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mirror http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners'_Guide#Mirrorcheck_for_up-to-date_packages It is possible your current installed package list has had no updates, but not likely. You would do all of us a favor by expanding your searches for answers to farther than the mailing list.
Re: [arch-general] VLC and Wine have been out-of-date too long.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 06/26/2010 10:28 AM, Lauri Niskanen wrote: > >> Hello, >> > > hi > > > it is stable enough for Arch and 1.0.1 is just too out date. >> >> Please update vlc to 1.1.0 and Wine to 1.2-rc5. >> > > rc version doesn't belong in our official extra. it would be updated to 1.2 > when is actually released > > vlc is already commited in trunk by me but i'm waiting a reply from the > upstream developer of libva. I don't have any issue releases vlc without > hardware decoding and i guess you want that too no? > > -- > Ionuț > I learned a long time ago if our dev's are holding packages back it is for a legitimate reason. If you dont like it, build it from source. Its your machine, nobody says you have to wait for official packages. People that complain about packages not being updated in my opinion tend to not spend enough time investigating why or are too lazy too solve their own problems. Show me another distro that provides binaries as new as Arch. Keep track of upstream issues, understand what gets included in standard arch repos, learn how to bump versions on your own via PKGBUILD's if you really need it, or stop complaining. Depending on such a small group of dev's and maintainers to solve every update issue you have is asking too much and frankly ridiculous.
Re: [arch-general] New Google Group for discussion and notices on Arch security.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ananda Samaddar wrote: > I've created a Google Group here for discussion around creating an Arch > Security Team: > > http://groups.google.com/group/arch-security > > Please join it if you're interested. The reason for this group is in > response to my rejected suggestion for an arch-security mailing list. > I'll CC any policy or process suggestions to arch-general, but when > announcements happen and also discussion regarding specific > vulnerabilities and mitigation they won't be CCed. > > If an Arch Security Team comes coalesces and the Devs are happy to > integrate us officially then we can consider deleting the group and if > possible transferring the archives to archlinux.org. > > Ananda > I am going to vote that you please do not CC all of this to arch-general. Many of us are not concerned with this, and already this afternoon I've seen enough mail regarding it that I can see it as a problem. The arch-security list has been denied, and it seems to me all this is doing is trying to circumvent the denial. Your google group is your business, but I feel that forwarding to arch-general, the most popular list we have, is unfair to those who do not wish to be involved.
Re: [arch-general] Xorg18 status and Gnome
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Alexander Preisinger < alexander.preisin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/6/3 Keith Hinton : > > Hi, > > Why is it that Arch seems to take longer than say other distros such as > Ubuntu, Debian, etc, to support newer versions of Xorg and Gnome? I was > curious about that process. > > While Debian/Ubuntu/etc distros seem to be supporting the Gnome desktop > just fine, it appears that others most noticeably that of Gentoo and other > such similar distros, mask or test out Gnome/Xorg, rather than releasing it > strate away into say in Arches case, the extra/core repos. > > I had another question, relating to that of Arch, some webpages I have > found compare Arch to Debian Cid/Unstable. How true is this, and exactly in > what way is Arch Linux itself, like that of Debian Cid? Thanks! > > Regards, --Keith > > Skype: skypedude1234 > > MSN Messenger: > > keithin...@hotmail.com > > Yahoo messenger /AIM: > > keithint1234 > > Arch was the fastest distro releasing Gnome 2.30. > We also have Xorg 1.8 sitting in testing repos soon to hit regular repos. I dont know where your getting your information from but Ubuntu nor Debian stable are not running this yet. The only comparison between ourselves and Debian Sid is that we are both rolling releases, yet where Arch is always rolling Sid will be frozen and feature tested before it moves to stable. We owe it to users using the normal repos to at least move big packages like this through testing before they hit regular repos for the sake of stability. Even with them going through testing first, Arch is one of the first to release as binary for sure.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Heiko Baums wrote: > > > > Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should > > > have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander > > > campaign against an OpenSource project. > > > > > > Jörg > > > > Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a > > licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it > > under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless > > instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? > > > > It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the > > licensing. > > The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD > spread by Debian. > > Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the > broken > and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). > > I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a > non-existent problem. > > Jörg > > -- > > EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de(home) > Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > * > * > *Korean Guide: Korean start -> Trucha bug -> Korean extra -> The basics -> > Update* > *Other Languages: Dutch* > * > * > *Latest update: April 24th 2010 -- Images have not been made by us, please > don't credit us for them!* > > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > How does any of this relate to the initial thread question whatsoever? Turning a simple question about burning an iso from CLI into an ongoing debate that was just on the Arch ML not a few months ago is rather annoying. I am sure I am not the only one that would like to see this debate taken elsewhere, and please let the thread die.
Re: [arch-general] Audio in firefox
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > On 05/16/2010 04:34 PM, Ananda Samaddar wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 16:32:16 +0530 >> Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: >> >> I want to play mp3 files in firefox. I earlier had mplayerplug-in, >>> but I removed gnome-stuff so it also got removed. Anybody knows some >>> alternative ? >>> >>> >> gecko-mediaplayer, it depends on Gnome-Mplayer but that itself doesn't >> rely on GNOME despite the name. >> >> Ananda >> > > At the end gnome-mplayer depends on Gnome libs which I have removed and > don't want to install again. I want one which is completely independent. > > > -- > Nilesh Govindarajan > Site & Server Administrator > www.itech7.com > मेरा भारत महान ! > मम भारत: महत्तम भवतु ! > "Gnome MPlayer is not dependent on any Gnome libraries. However. the look and feel of the application is based on the Gnome HIG. The main dependency is on GTK2, GLIB2 and DBUS." - straight off the gnome-mplayer website.
Re: [arch-general] testing xorg packages may not be nvidia friendly
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote: > I tried installing testing on a box running nvidia drivers that I have > at school. X didn't come up. I don't know why and didn't really > investigate (as I was really testing to see if my box at home had an > env issue seems it does). using nvidia-173xx-utils > > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com Nvidia has not released a driver for xorg 1.8 in regards to a legacy driver. The only one working so far afaik is the 'nvidia' driver itself. This is one thing preventing 1.8 moving out of testing.
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Nathan Wayde wrote: > On 07/05/10 15:48, Burlynn Corlew Jr wrote: > >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Johannes Held wrote: >> >> http://www.archlinux.org/news/495/ >>> >>> * If you have gvim installed, the update will inform you that vim >>> conflicts >>> with gvim. This is the expected behavior. Installation of vim and gvim >>> separately is no longer required, the gvim package now installs vim as >>> well. >>> >>> -- >>> Gruß, Johannes >>> http://hehejo.de >>> >>> >> This is a rolling release, not an LTS. There is no excuse to not be >> updating >> regularly and reading the news. If its a production machine and you are >> worried about breakage maybe you shouldnt be running arch on it. The ML, >> forums, and irc are full of people who refuse to read the news or update >> regularly, and we all waste time answering questions that with proper arch >> maintenance would ensure that they never come up. >> >> Really dude? you complain about him wasting time when you could find the > time to dig up some old mail that was answered ages ago to attack the guy > for asking questions? > > I'm sure we can all agree that it's important for an Arch user to be more > independent and put more effort into solving our own problem but did you > know you can simply ignore any of these questions? > > It doesn't take any effort since the bulk of the issue was already in the > title. > > To be honest I simply cannot take this kind of negativity. I would really > like for this kind of attitude to stay away from Arch because it's not nice > and it's the very thing I hate about the Linux community in general. > First off it wasnt mail, it was headline archlinux.org news. Secondly, for me to expect people to use the resources Arch provides to resolve issues is not crazy, and this is one issue among many dealing with the same thing. If you refuse to read and stay updated why should any of us bother with helping? Its spam that could be avoided with proper practices. We are not here to babysit. If you dont like the principles arch runs with, use another distro. That is not negativity but an expectation that you are using the distro the way it is intended.
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM, David C. Rankin < drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote: > On 05/07/2010 09:48 AM, Burlynn Corlew Jr wrote: > > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Johannes Held wrote: > > > >> http://www.archlinux.org/news/495/ > >> > >> * If you have gvim installed, the update will inform you that vim > conflicts > >> with gvim. This is the expected behavior. Installation of vim and gvim > >> separately is no longer required, the gvim package now installs vim as > >> well. > >> > >> -- > >> Gruß, Johannes > >> http://hehejo.de > >> > > > > This is a rolling release, not an LTS. There is no excuse to not be > updating > > regularly and reading the news. If its a production machine and you are > > worried about breakage maybe you shouldnt be running arch on it. The ML, > > forums, and irc are full of people who refuse to read the news or update > > regularly, and we all waste time answering questions that with proper > arch > > maintenance would ensure that they never come up. > > > > It's people like you that give arch a bad reputation. Grow 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 > Saying you were wrong would be the more mature avenue. I did not bash or call names, I stated the obvious. This is not the first time the ML has been posted with your obvious questions.
Re: [arch-general] Err... Why is gvim now conflicting with vim?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Johannes Held wrote: > http://www.archlinux.org/news/495/ > > * If you have gvim installed, the update will inform you that vim conflicts > with gvim. This is the expected behavior. Installation of vim and gvim > separately is no longer required, the gvim package now installs vim as > well. > > -- > Gruß, Johannes > http://hehejo.de > This is a rolling release, not an LTS. There is no excuse to not be updating regularly and reading the news. If its a production machine and you are worried about breakage maybe you shouldnt be running arch on it. The ML, forums, and irc are full of people who refuse to read the news or update regularly, and we all waste time answering questions that with proper arch maintenance would ensure that they never come up.
Re: [arch-general] Brasero Wont Copy Disks
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Nick Stepa wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:11:41PM -0400, Carlos Mennens wrote: > > I just installed Brasero to burn / copy disks. I first added my user > > 'carlos' to the 'optical' group. However when I try and copy a disk on > > my machine, I get an immediate error that says it fails. > > Have you try to write disks using console utilites, like 'growisofs'? > You also might want to check dmesg for any output - i personally have not have great success with brasero and my lite-on burner, but ymmv. I switched to gnomebaker/xfburn and everything worked fine.
Re: [arch-general] VirtualBox
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Lukas Fleischer > wrote: > > You need to install sdl if you want to use the VirtualBox GUI, have a > > look at the optional deps. > > I installed that and yes I want to use the GUI but its dependency > after dependency and it doesn't seem to end... > > Is there no way just to install are required dependencies? > > Just for VirtualBox I have installed: > > sudo pacman -S libxcursor > sudo pacman -S sdl > sudo pacman -S fontconfig > > And now it's still complaining about "libXi.so.6"...Is there no way > just to resolve everything or locate all required dependencies? > Try using an aur helper - http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Aur_helpers The big ones are clyde, packer, yaourt. they ought to help you with the dependency issues.
Re: [arch-general] First Time Using AUR
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote: > I am getting ready to use my newly built Arch Linux system for the 1st > time and use AUR and read the Wiki but I have a question that I am not > clear on: > > Next choose an appropriate build directory. A build directory is > simply a directory where the package will be made or "built" and can > be any directory. Examples of commonly used directories are: > > ~/builds > > Now when I create the "~/builds" directory, does it matter if I do > this in a regular user's home directory or in 'roots'? It is not very > clear and I don't want to break anything or improperly build a package > from AUR. > I dont know if your using an aur helper or using makepkg alone, but i would use ~/builds in a users' directory. running makepkg as root is bad practice.
Re: [arch-general] gsfonts - package is updated?
2010/3/25 Ng Oon-Ee > Repository : extra > Name : gsfonts > Version: 1.0.7pre44-1 > Installed : 8.11-5 > URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/ > > I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version > numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable > version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and > doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page? > > I assumed the same, though I cannot confirm its true. Important note for people running it to this, because of the version change pacman will dump out on Syu claiming local version is newer - this needs to be installed manually with a standard -S. Just an FYI.
Re: [arch-general] what is the procedure when your find an out-of-date package in AUR?
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Xavier Chantry wrote: > 2010/3/11 David C. Rankin : > > On 03/11/2010 09:50 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > >> If all else fails, blame Allan. Oh, and tell the maintainer what failed. > >> > > > > Gotcha! > > > >I just posted the new PKGBUILD files as 'comments' to the AUR > package and sent > > Chris (the maintainer) an email telling him what I'd done. Hopefully he > can move > > cut and paste the new package versions and md5sums into the official > PKGBUILD > > files and remove the out-of-date flag. > > > >I figured I'd give it another week before I started blaming Allan > :p > > > > You should probably have done the opposite : > - in AUR comments, just quickly state what needs to be changed / fixed > - in the email , include the proper attachments > > Pasting a pkgbuild in aur comments is ugly, takes a lot of space and > usually screws up the formatting enough to make it unusable in a very > confusing way. > Sometimes pasting the pkgbuild in comments is the only solution, especially with lazy maintainers. :/ I've used a share posted that way, and a copy and paste seemed to work fine. Not that it will always work though, I still agree its bad practice, but short of another solution it is necessary at times.
Re: [arch-general] Unable to upgrade
2010/2/11 Ng Oon-Ee > On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 18:54 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > > On Thursday 11 February 2010 18:50:46 Ionut Biru wrote: > > > fire up a browser and read the news related to KDE 4.4. > > or subscribe to arch-announce ;) > > > Isn't [arch-announce] dead for the longest time? I remember getting 1 > month worth of mails at a time. Obviously a month late. > > Dont think so, just received the news of the intel vid update and the arch mag today, so its alive.
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
2010/1/27 Ng Oon-Ee > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:55 -0700, Brendan Long wrote: > > On 01/26/2010 06:37 PM, Carlos Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Fagiani > wrote: > > > > > >> [snip] > > >> > > > Yeah I will review the Wiki again in more detail. I have never > > > installed anything from AUR but assume it's pretty straight forward. I > > > will try your suggested packages... > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Installing from the AUR is kind of a pain, I'd suggest that the first > > package you get is yaourt. It lets you install directly from the AUR > > install of downloading individual files and then running makepkg. > > Bad advise, IMHO. yaourt is a helper, not meant to be a pacman > replacement. To Andrea, you should learn to download the PKGBUILD and > all accompanying files first (to a directory you have write access to) > and how to edit PKGBUILDs and run makepkg. Once you've got passing > familiarity with that then using yaourt does save time. > > Basically, if you start off with yaourt, you're screwed if things break > somewhere down the line, since you won't know what's happening behind > the scenes, as it were. > > I agree with this a 100%. I do not mind people using automated package builders, but you need to be aware of whats going on. The IRC channel regularly gets people that have run into exactly this, people being told to use yaourt initially then when a build fails they have no idea how to troubleshoot. I'm really not convinced automated builders are very k.i.s.s., but we are a binary based distro so I won't get into that.
