Re: [arch-general] iptables forward policy
2012/8/25 Juan Diego Tascón : > Good day, Hello :) > I'm thinking of > setting the default FORWARD policy to ACCEPT as my default INPUT > policy is DROP and unless there is a valid FORWARD rule for a given > port the packets wont go anywhere. I'm I right on this? You're wrong. Either a packet goes through the INPUT chain or it goes through the FORWARD chain, depending on its destination. Take a look at this packet flow diagram: http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/images/f/f0/Iptables.gif Corrado
Re: [arch-general] renaming files
Il 02 marzo 2012 00:13, pete ha scritto: > I have some 350 picture files with names along the lines of > "IMG_7127 EOS-1D Mark III copy.jpg" i would like to rename them all > to more like "IMG_7127.jpg" i have tried a few times tonight and cant > get my head around it anyone got a script that can do it There have been lots of good suggestion. I put on the plate "detox": https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7130 Its purpose is eliminating from filenames charachters that make them difficult to work with, so it's also good for files *beginning* with a space, esoteric utf8 characters, escape codes, parentheses and whatever. It's kind of overkill for this, but it deserves to be mentioned :-) C
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD question
2012/1/7 Allan McRae : > I'd just go for something like this: > > _pkgver=2.0.1-BETA1 > pkgver=2.0.1beta1 > > No need for all that fancy stuff... I'd go for that too. But I find these little challenges very funny, and I wondered if it was possible without adding another variable :) bardo
Re: [arch-general] PKGBUILD question
2012/1/7 Don Juan :
> The problem I have run into and can not seem to find info about or something
> I have ever run into is that it seems bsdtar when extracting is making the
> name as name_2.0.1-BETA1 and not making it name_2.0.1-beta1 and makepkg
> fails saying it can not find the proper file of name_2.0.1-beta1.
There is a nice construct in bash (beware: version 4 only) which
allows you to make something uppercase with brace expansion.
Look at this:
[bardo@antani ~]$ pkgver=2.0.1-beta1
[bardo@antani ~]$ echo ${pkgver^^}
2.0.1-BETA1
The only problem in your specific situation is the need to also change
'-' in '_'. That would require a double brace expansion, but I'm not
sure it is possible. If it is, it seems to be undocumented. The
cleanest way I could come up with is:
$(sed 's/-/_/' <<<${pkgver^^})
Not very nice, huh? :)
bardo
Re: [arch-general] pacman "Targets" sort order
2011/5/4 David C. Rankin : > bluez -> run-parts -> ca-certificates?? Targets *are* sorted alphabetically, and upgraded in that order, but there are exceptions, namely dependencies, which then appear before the package that depends on them and are upgraded before it, in case it needs the dependency at update time. C
Re: [arch-general] AUR deletion request
2011/5/14 |^ `/ () () | ( (-) | : > Btw, why is it that package maintainers can't just delete their own > packages? Because then nothing could stop you from adopting all orphans and mass deleting them. Corrado
Re: [arch-general] What happened to Powerpill?
2011/3/28 Nicolas Bigaouette : > I guess it would make sense if your own bandwidth is bigger then the > mirror's... It happens with my ISP that the single connection bandwidth looks to be capped. I have 8Mbit but a single transfer rarely exceeds 2Mbit, unless it is very late night or Sunday morning :) Powerpill allowed me to fully use my bandwidth. I recognize it's a bad traffic shaping problem (and powerpill had its shortcomings too), but it solved it for me. Corrado
[arch-general] i686 build machines for rent
Since the decision of discontinuing the i686 binary repo, many people who can't or don't want to switch will need to recompile their packages themselves. Then there's also the problem of devs and TUs who don't have access to an x86_64 machine. Striving to find a solution I came up with an idea: selling processing power! That's right, guys. Do you own one of those slow i686-only dinosaurs? Do you need the power of an x86_64 machine to get your packages built quickly in i686 chroots? I'm here for you! I have a couple of machines I can dedicate to this task. I decided for a "political" price of 20€/year; all revenues will be donated to the OxPD (One x86_64 Per Developer) Project. Before setting everything up I'd like to hear from the community if this is something they're interested in, and I'm obviously also asking all Arch contributors who have a decent machine (x86_64, that is...) to dedicate it to this important project that will allow all of our devs to continue their work for our favorite distro. Corrado Primier (Arch Linux Trusted User)
