Re: [arch-general] Please update boost from [extra] - PKGBUILD attached
I was waiting for 1.41 to come out since I knew it would be soon. I didn't want to rebuild everything for 1.40 only to have the new version released the next day. k On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 15:12 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > On 25.11.2009 00:45, Ionut Biru wrote: > > On 11/25/2009 01:39 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > >> Boost in [extra] has been out-of-date since 1830 (and marked as such) > >> and even though I mailed the maintainer two weeks ago no update > >> happened. > >> Here is my updated PKGBUILD for 1.41.0 which is actually a bit neater > >> than before since no silly patches are required anymore. > >> I'm currently running this package and see no trouble. Please use this > >> to update boost in [extra] :). > >> > >> -- Sven-Hendrik > > > > if it where that simple :). boost update require a lot of packages to > > be rebuild. we have a rebuild in progress in testing and maybe after > > that we are bumping that too. > > > It's only 29 packages though and boost usually changes with backwards > compatibility in mind. Am I being naive? :) -- K. Piche
Re: [arch-general] Bind 9.6.1-1 patched against dynamic update ddos?
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 18:37 +0200, RedShift wrote: > Fredrik Eriksson wrote: > > Hi, > > I've seen that there's a dynamic update ddos attack that is widely > > available on the net and after looking for the solution it seems that > > bind's latest patch (9.6.1-P1) solves this problem. > > > > So my question is more like this, is extra/bind 9.6.1-1 in the > > repository the same as bind 9.6.1-P1? > > The build date of the current package in extra/ says the 18 July but the > > homepage of BIND says the latest patch was published the 28 July. > > > > Best regards > > Fredrik Eriksson > > > > > > According to a commenter on the slashdot news article about this issue, this > should provide a temporary countermeasure: > > iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DROP -m u32 --u32 '30>>27&0xF=5' > > haven't tested it myself though... The current version 9.6.1.P1-1 in extra corrects the issue. k > Glenn -- K. Piche
Re: [arch-general] Is foomatic-db-engine being attended-to re. Perl-5.10.0?
I've already fixed the PKGBUILD so that the next release will comply. k On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:49 -0400, Eric Belanger wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Neil Darlow wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I noticed that package foomatic-db-engine installs some files into > > /usr/lib/perl5/current. > > > > According to the Perl Policy, on the Arch wiki, this is indicative of a > > non-policy-confirming package and should be dealt with. > > > > Is this happening, or has it slipped through the cracks? > > > > Regards, > > Neil Darlow > > > > It was probably forgotten. Submit a bug report if it hasn't been done > already. > -- K. Piche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [arch-general] Problem connecting Sansa e250 with Arch
On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 03:13 +0200, Mordechai Peller wrote:
> The Sansa e200 series can connect either via MTP or MSC. With the help
> of libmtp I can connect via MTP, but I need to be able to connect via
> MSC.When I booted an Ubuntu 7.10 LiveCD it worked fine, so the problem
> is with Arch, or at least my install of it. I suspect it's a udev or
> driver issue, but I'm not sure.
>
> Thanks
Do you have a udev rule for it? Like:
SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", KERNEL=="sd*", ATTRS{idProduct}=="7421",
ATTRS{idVendor}=="0781", SYMLINK+="sansa", GROUP="storage"
The SYMLINK or GROUP could be something else.
--
K. Piche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 12:54 -0500, Travis Willard wrote: > On Dec 16, 2007 11:48 AM, Karolina Lindqvist > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > söndag 16 december 2007 skrev Mister Dobalina: > > > As far as the way Arch currently is, we started out with i686 and > expanded to include x86_64 when it became a popular choice and we had > willing volunteers for it. We don't currently support i586 > "officially" and, as far as I know, have no plan to - partly because > none of the devs have the need to run Arch on i586 hardware, I > imagine, although I might be wrong. I have a i586 file/print server. I even have a mini i386 port but it's not much fun to use. :) However I'm not interested in running an official i586 port since the packages are stripped down for file serving/printing - as in no X and no optional libraries. Are you using kernel 2.6 for the VIA port? k -- K. Piche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
