Allan McRae wrote:
Signoffs needed for the following packages:
filesystem 2009.07-1
initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly)
syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
udev 141-4
Allan
For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last-1 comment [#2]
And for initscript
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Signoffs needed for the following packages:
filesystem 2009.07-1
initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly)
syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
udev 141-4
Allan
For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my
On Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2009 19:27 Florian Pritz wrote:
Get the old libjpeg package, extract it and copy the .so file to
/usr/lib. Linking is a no-go.
The best solution for working around seems this package from AUR:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28427
See you, Attila
Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Thomas Bächlertho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Allan McRae schrieb:
From experience... not necessarily. I got into X without doing that
although I had no tty's.
But exactly how do we deal with this? Post a new item before the move?
Matthew schrieb:
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
problem is a good solution here.
First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core file.
Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the initscripts? If my
memory holds me correctly the
On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Matthew schrieb:
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
problem is a good solution here.
First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core
file. Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls
Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Matthew schrieb:
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
problem is a good solution here.
First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core
file. Secondly what will happen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Matthewpyt...@pyther.net wrote:
Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Matthew schrieb:
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
problem is a good solution here.
First, I am not a big fan of the
Loui Chang wrote:
Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly
distros where things are automatically configured and all eh
Feature request for pacman-4.0: Please add a Clippy like assistant :P
__
/ \ ___
| | / \
@ @
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
Loui stated it very well.
I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic
sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough
It seems wrong to me to let so many people perform the same step by hand
when we could have done it
2009/7/19 Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org:
We have to think about what's simpler here: Have a short and safe sed-line
in post_upgrade, or have a shitload of users spend their time booting with
live CDs and editing files /and opening bugs and shouting in the forums and
crying on the mailing
I have to agree with pyther. You, devs, have been doing all you can to
warn the users. There is the arch-announce mailing list, there are
messages from pacman when it installs something that might break
others, there is the forum, there are announcements on Arch's home
page... Damn! there are even
Matthew schrieb:
What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run?
Seems kind of pointless.
Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the way
the developers want it, not the users. The users just reap the benefits
of all the developers hard
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 20:09, Loui Changlouipc@gmail.com wrote:
Haha. Yeah I just don't want packages to be messing with my configs
behind my back. Post a message with a sed command, or a .pacnew file, or
something. Don't do it without letting me have that control.
That's rude.
First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this
update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a
reboot...
So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or
automatically fixing the file.
A post install message means that I tell
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote:
post_install()
{
if [ -f /etc/inittab.pacnew ]; then
echo You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning
about a .pacnew file
fi
}
+1 to this solution from me.
Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote:
post_install()
{
if [ -f /etc/inittab.pacnew ]; then
echo You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning
about a .pacnew file
fi
}
+1 to this solution from me.
I
On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did
this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it
with a reboot...
So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or
automatically fixing
Allan McRae wrote:
First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this
update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a
reboot...
So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or
automatically fixing the file.
A post install message
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 23:03, Matthewpyt...@pyther.net wrote:
Could someone please enlighten me why you and Thomas want to please the
users that complain? I simply do not understand. You said yourself that you
don't like modifying config files, so don't. To hell with the users that
don't like
Dear Arch Devs,
I'm reposting this mail to arch-general because I was ignored on
arch-dev-public.
I wonder what should be done about the blender package in [extra]. The
package hasn't been updated for quite some time (it is correctly marked
out-of-date), a few bug reports have been filed for
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Dear Arch Devs,
I'm reposting this mail to arch-general because I was ignored on
arch-dev-public.
You can not post to arch-dev-public so your message was not ignored, we
just never saw it.
I wonder what should be done about the blender package in [extra].
Holy hell this is out of control. Here's the two sides, boiled down:
* Use an automatic sed to prevent people from complaining
* Post a news item and let people do it manually.
As we can tell from this thread, people are going to bitch either way -
making the 'no bitching' argument a little
23 matches
Mail list logo
