Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Can we trust our mirrors?
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 04:22 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am So, 30.11.2008, 00:24, schrieb Aaron Griffin: All we'd need is to patch repo-add to include signature data in the DB. To do this properly, signatures should be uploaded with the package itself, from the packager's machine... hmmm perhaps i missed something, but wouldn´t be the easiest way to download the db.tar.gz directly from ftp.archlinux.org or another trusted server and the packages from the mirrors? something like a decentralized system. I think ftp.archlinux.org can be pretty slow sometimes (compared to near-by mirrors), so wouldn't it be equally sufficient to just fetch the DB-checksum from archlinux.org? (Still not as secure as signed DBs though.)
Re: [arch-general] top posting
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 16:34 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM, R. Dale Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorta like using a date format of MM/DD/YY, huh? inches. fluid ounces. grams. This reminds me of something. There is no such locale as international? ie English as language and -MM-DD for dates and so on. Before my reinstall I made something like that myself, but would be nice to have something upstream and available on every system =) [Ohh, and we need top-posting for Outlook compatibility 8-)]
Re: [arch-general] Launchpad.net
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:35 +0200, A. Klitzing wrote: Hi there, I registered Arch Linux to launchpad.net [1]. I like the idea of a corporate platform for linux distributions. I don't want to replace existing infrastructure (flyspray, ...). But it will help (me and some other, I think) to mark a bug to be presence in Arch, too. I used a lot of bugtrackers and the bugtracker of launchpad works very nice (even LP lacks flyspray-support at the moment [4]). Maybe someone wants to work with Arch and launchpad, too, like forwarding bugs to Arch if needed. I'm open to add people to that team [2] or give ownership to developers. Also I asked for Arch-Support on PPA [3]. But that will be a low priority. I don't want to destroy your plan, so have in mind that I am negative about Launchpad when you read this ;) First of all: why? Do you think anyone of the Ubuntu guys cares more if a bug is also marked as being valid on Arch? I mean (and that's imho part of the arch philosophy), the best thing is to get bugs fixed upstream and not report them to Ubuntu. Second: Launchpad features may be nice (and even superior to self-hosted stuff (eg. Trac)), but that only applies when you use most (read all) parts of it. (Including bzr for example). Last one: I bet PPA won't support building pacman-packages for the next 10+ years :) Is it a problem? Not really, isn't actually too hard to create a cross-package as Arch only supports two architectures anyway...
Re: [arch-general] Launchpad.net
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:47 +0200, A. Klitzing wrote: Well, you shouldn't bash against Launchpad because it's from Canonical and they released Ubuntu. Most times people are against Ubuntu they are just envy of their fast success. ;-) Anyway... I don't want to talk about THAT. Ubuntu is nice but has some problems like every other distro... but Ubuntu != Launchpad. Ok, besides I still not see the benefit, it's not up to me to decide whether arch should make use of LP or not. Just to not let this point being the way you say: Personally I do not have anything against Canoncial because of Ubuntu, I just don't like them because they're Canoncial. But that's another (long long) story ;)
Re: [arch-general] Banshee needs an update
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 10:19 +0300, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: Current banshee version is 0.98.1 and latest is 0.98.3. Even though i dont know i doubt the features added are that essential to cause this fuzz. Oh, they are. Banshee had a complete rewrite and the 0.98.1 version is really really basic. 0.98.3 adds new stuff like shuffling, video support etc. I think I would call that major features.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 14:53 -0400, Loui wrote: Loui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roman Kyrylych [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL2 or, at your opinion, any later version is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;) Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks. http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses Your link doesn't do anything to explain why (GPL2 or later, GPL3) is practically any different than (GPL2, GPL3) Am I missing anything? Please let me know. I think, what Roman states (and what is right as far as I know), is that (GPL2+) != (GPL2, GPL3+). That's all I guess.
Re: [arch-general] Jacman. Problem installing packages (don't panic)
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:20 +0100, Xavier wrote: Timm Preetz wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:31 +0100, Xavier wrote: Hm, do we have 2 pyalpm now? http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/pyalpm/trunk/ http://svn.archlinux-projects.org/repos/pyalpm/trunk/src/ Counted this in? http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=tree;f=lib/libalpm; ;) That's probably the most recent. Hmm. Both pyalpm projects are python bindings (~wrappers) for libalpm. Sorry, I was of the track..
Re: [arch-general] Domain: archlinux.eu
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 00:08 +0100, Volker Glatz wrote: Actually there is a redirection to archlinux.org. [...] If there is absolutely no interest in it, I'll give it free. At last it could be used as a starting point for european Arch User like ubuntu-eu.org is used. Maybe it would even possible to use this as a user-maintained domain? So maybe offer some services to/for/by Arch Linux users.
