Re: [arch-general] valgrind - memory exclusion files on the fritz?

On 11/24/2016 09:02 AM, Chi-Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote: > OK I found the cause of the extra malloc() call. Since glibc 2.23 > printf uses malloc instead of mmap to allocate file buffers. If you > want to keep the old behavior, keep the old glibc. > > See

[arch-general] Permanent job in Tokyo, Japan

Hello, I’m working with an employer that is looking to hire someone to fulfil a permanent DevOps-type position at their office in Tokyo. Japanese language is not required; only English. Consequently I had hoped that some members of this mailing list may like to discuss further; off-list. I can

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:41:12PM +0100, SET wrote: > >This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. > > This topic has gone generic, so here are my 2 cents : those who don 't trust > an app should just avoid it, and not even look at it; no one is bound to use > an app; don

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:00:49 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >There even is something bad with Mr. Grawert. It's very simple, some is _not_ pardon a typo, I missed the "not" Serious Eli, it's just you who is spreading nonsense at the moment. By reading something, unrelated to this Arch

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:07:17 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >If you cannot figure out how your own references indicate that the >person you specifically called out as an official Ubuntu person (email >address and all), who is "deeply involved in working on snappy", and >probably knows

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/2016 04:59 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:46:52 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >> I said that according to Ubuntu devs, Snaps are apparently the way of >> the future > > Do you have any evidence for this claim, apart of the claim of somebody > in favour of

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:46:52 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >I said that according to Ubuntu devs, Snaps are apparently the way of >the future Do you have any evidence for this claim, apart of the claim of somebody in favour of snappy, who isn't informed about the current development

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/2016 03:53 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:10:49 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >>> For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers >>> is based upon apt, not snaps. >> >> And that is apparently changing, according to Ubuntu devs. > >

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:10:49 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >> For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers >> is based upon apt, not snaps. > >And that is apparently changing, according to Ubuntu devs. If you don't know Ubuntu, why do you want to talk about

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

>This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. This topic has gone generic, so here are my 2 cents : those who don 't trust an app should just avoid it, and not even look at it; no one is bound to use an app; don 't contain, use something else. --

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

> On 24 Nov 2016, at 15:19, Martin Kühne via arch-general > wrote: > > This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. I totally agree. Sandboxing and containerisation is no cure for bad code. When you have a leaking pipe, you shouldn't simply

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 24 Nov 2016, at 12:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > The first sentence on http://snapcraft.io/ is > > "Package any app for every Linux desktop, server, cloud or device, and > deliver updates directly" > > and the first logo beside the Ubuntu logo is Arch Linux. Thanks a

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/2016 10:33 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:30 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >> You are using Ubuntu resources to spread an anti-snapcraft message >> along the lines of Arch-style philosophy. > > That is off-top for this list and apart from this untrue. >

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:30 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >You are using Ubuntu resources to spread an anti-snapcraft message >along the lines of Arch-style philosophy. That is off-top for this list and apart from this untrue. I'm a part of the Ubuntu community. For your very

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/2016 09:50 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > I didn't use their mailing list, to spread hate about snaps. It's > also my mailing list, since I'm a subscriber of this and several Ubuntu > falvour mailing lists to help Linux novices and btw. my help usually is > much appreciated on those mailing

Re: [arch-general] valgrind - memory exclusion files on the fritz?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David C. Rankin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 08:49 AM, Chi-Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote: >> As far as I know it's impossible (yet) to skip specific functions in >> memory usage counters. Only memory leak reports can be filtered. And

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:36:23 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >It is another thing entirely to pick a fight on *their* mailing list, >about whether *their* users (who have different priorities from Arch >users) are willing to use Snaps. I didn't use their mailing list, to spread hate

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/2016 08:40 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > An excerpt from > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html > > o...@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. > ^^ > ^^ > > Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 > Subject: Re:

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 14:40:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > An excerpt from > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html > > o...@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. > ^^ > ^^ > > Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 >

[arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. Oh look, the apps are not secure, the apps sometimes crash. But you know what, let's take a high level approach, because we're such great managers. Let's NOT make better apps and a better stack by actually writing better multimedia

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

> o...@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. > ^^ > ^^ > > Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 > Subject: Re: Question about Snaps > To: ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com > From: o...@ubuntu.com > > [snip] > > snaps are the future in the ubuntu

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:08:48 +0100, Tinu Weber wrote: >Snaps (and other applications like pip, gems, cabal, docker, ...) do >have capabilities to install additional data to the system. But they do >not interfere with pacman's package/software infrastructure like AUR >helpers and pacman wrappers

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 13:42:26 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:22:49 +0100, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > >On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo > >> would be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:22:49 +0100, Jelle van der Waa wrote: >On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would >> be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets >> across a wrong message. > >You are aware that we

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would be > removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets across a > wrong message. You are aware that we package snapd in [community]? [1] I'm not sure why ask for the logo

Re: [arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

On 24/11/16 11:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote: It at least is nothing I would recommend for usage with Arch Linux on i686 and x86_64 servers and desktop computers, not only because it requires an Ubuntu kernel patch [1], but because it IMO is completely against the rolling release approach and beyond

[arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

Hi, after taking a brief look into building a yaml and following Ubuntu's Snapcraft mailing list, I don't have a good opinion of it. It at least is nothing I would recommend for usage with Arch Linux on i686 and x86_64 servers and desktop computers, not only because it requires an Ubuntu kernel