On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 07:08:20AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> We sign *packages*, not repositories. Will this damn thing about MD5
> please die? "Fixing" that still fixes nothing, and I'll pay one
> million USD to someone that can actually forge a package with a given
> MD5.
Hah hah! I have my wor
> 2008/12/8 Jud :
> > pkgrel=1
> > pkgdesc=""
> > +url="http://ADDRESS/";
What's the point of 'ADDRESS' if you're going to remove/replace that
100% of the time? 'url' should be indicative enough of what should
appear in that field. That's the beauty of PKGBUILDs. They almost need
no documentatio
> The AUR package that I have created is at:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11182
Hey Bryan,
Unsupported packages should not share the same name as official
packages, so I've deleted it.
There'd be no problem if you called it 'pacman-ischo' or something, to
denote that it's your
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 08:34:59AM +1300, Bryan Ischo wrote:
> Well I find git to be kind of painful, to be honest. Maybe I'm not
> using it correctly? Every git command is very fast, but there are so
> many of them to run as part of recreating patches, and so many little
> details to get right e
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:10:53AM +1300, Bryan Ischo wrote:
> It's not the ability to modify a single file in two different places at
> once. It's the ability to keep changes logically separated by directory, in
> a persistent manner that doesn't require git commands to put changes away
>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:34:52PM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Some people don't seem to know about projects.archlinux.org. Jeff developed
> patches against pacman 3.2.2's makepkg, while similar changes already went
> into our master tree, which is located at
> http://projects.archlinux.o
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt | 14 +++---
doc/makepkg.8.txt |2 +-
doc/repo-add.8.txt |8 +---
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
index f8ed7f2..9e271af 100644
--- a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:56:52PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
> > ---
> > doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt | 14 +++---
> > doc/makepkg.8.txt |2 +-
> > doc/repo-add.8.txt |8 +---
> > 3 files
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:56:52PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
> > ---
> > doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt | 14 +++---
> > doc/makepkg.8.txt |2 +-
> > doc/repo-add.8.txt |8 +---
> > 3 files
The index in the for loop wasn't being incremented, so
if the first file wasn't found, the second file would be compared to the
first checksum, rather than the second.
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 19 +++
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:46:22AM +0200, changaco wrote:
> Not even a little message to tell me if there are things I still need
> to work on ?
Seems pacman-dev is in vacation mode, or I suspect that they are busy
with some other things lately. :D
___
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:08:15PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > The index in the for loop wasn't being incremented, so
> > if the first file wasn't found, the second file would be compared to the
> > first c
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:04:55PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> Yeah, Xavier and I figured it out over IM the other day. You'll see
> this commit which resolves the issue that has been outstanding for
> quite some time.
>
> http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=101c16b3eb8048dffd
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 12:07:14PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> See FS#14542- this allows -Qs output to be fed back into pacman without
> problems or having to strip off the 'local/' prefix manually.
You must have meant FS#14642.
I've made a comment there. :D
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 24 ++--
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index 433fe34..d396480 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
@@ -871,22
It wouldn't be very nice to ship a PKGBUILD with the wrong checksums.
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 18 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index d396480..ef36e8f 100644
On Sun 21 Jun 2009 20:36 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> @Loui: you should look into enabling commit hooks to avoid white
> space issues.
Whoops. Thanks for the notice.
___
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/li
On Sun 21 Jun 2009 20:49 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> >Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
> >---
> > scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 24 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
>
> I'd like this to stay
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 36
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index b555a03..2140ff0 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
On Mon 22 Jun 2009 17:15 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Thanks pushed to my working branch with a couple of minor changes:
>
> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> index 2140ff0..2bb7eb9 100644
> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> @@ -880,14 +880,13 @@
This seems like the most appropriate mailing list for this.
Cheers!
___
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Use the Makefile to help ensure that /etc/srcpac.d is created, rather
than relying on the PKGBUILD, since the program requires it.
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
Makefile |8
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Makefile
diff --git a/Makefile b
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
srcpac |2 +-
srcpac.1 | 32
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/srcpac b/srcpac
index 45f1b5d..5288cd9 100755
--- a/srcpac
+++ b/srcpac
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ build_packages
On Thu 25 Jun 2009 13:11 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> >This seems like the most appropriate mailing list for this.
> >Cheers!
>
> Close enough... srcpac bugs hang out in the pacman section of the
> bug tracker. The patches look fine so I will pull
On Sat 27 Jun 2009 16:37 +0300, volodia macovei wrote:
> ...so, I compress the file in one archive... I'll send it like that
> and i hope is ok...
Hmm did you send it here?
It must have been stripped if you did.
___
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@ar
On Fri 10 Jul 2009 17:25 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> The original complaint was that when using makepkg -sic, the sudo
> password is cached after dependency installation and malicious sudo
> commands might be executed during build() as the password is cached.
>
> My opinion on this is that we s
I was experimenting using dash as /bin/sh and noticed that a lot of
packages were having errors in their install scriptlets.
popen passes commands to /bin/sh so we need to explicitly invoke bash,
which the scriptlets are written for. WOO!
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
lib/libalpm/trans.c
On Tue 28 Jul 2009 18:50 +0200, Xavier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > I was experimenting using dash as /bin/sh and noticed that a lot of
> > packages were having errors in their install scriptlets.
> >
> > popen passes commands to /bin/
On Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:03 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Xavier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Aaron Griffin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Another thought would be to make the scriptlet executable and pass the
> >> "function" as an arg to the script, this way we
On Mon 14 Sep 2009 17:26 +0200, Xavier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:03 PM, James Rayner wrote:
> > The aim of this is to alert a user to system/package breaking updates
> > before they happen and before they approve the sync install. This is
> > intended primarily for kernel/initscripts/pacm
On Tue 15 Sep 2009 21:18 +1000, James Rayner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:14 PM, James Rayner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't really know what to think here. I had looked at that messages
> >> one for a long time and thought it was a decent id
On Tue 15 Sep 2009 14:27 +0200, Xavier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> >
> > The user should be made aware that there is a ChangeLog, and they have a
> > means of easily reading that before installation or upgrade.
> >
> > There'
On Sat 03 Oct 2009 01:43 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2009/10/2 huntxu
> > 2. let makepkg install custom license automatically
> > When making packages whose licenses are "custom", we use PKGBUILD to
> > install the license file manually. Since it is a common step for those
> > packages, why not let
On Sat 10 Oct 2009 16:40 +0200, Xavier wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Xavier wrote:
> >
> > This looked good to me.
> >
>
> Sorry for the double mail.
>
> I just had one question :
> Will every package maintainer figure out easily that his ChangeLog is
> no longer included ?
> Or do w
On Sun 11 Oct 2009 21:59 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> The current --skip-integ isa bit weird. It does not skip integrity
> checks, but instead does them and prints a warning. Change this
> behaviour to actually skipping the checks.
Why should anyone skip integrity checks?
Do people want to create
On Mon 12 Oct 2009 00:10 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2009/10/11 Loui Chang
>
> > Why should anyone skip integrity checks?
> > Do people want to create invalid source packages?
> >
> > This is a horrible feature in my opinion.
>
> For --nobuild?
That isn&#
On Sun 11 Oct 2009 11:14 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > Dan McGee wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The current --skip-integ isa bit weird. It does not skip integrity
> >>> checks, but instead
On Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:40 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >>Patch [1] extends the --skipinteg option allow the generation of
> >>a source tarball without requiring the checking of the integrity
> >>checks
> >
> >You've given the what, but what is the why? If the source integrity is
> >flaw
On Fri 30 Oct 2009 15:29 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:40 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>Jeff wrote:
> >>>>Patch [1] extends the --skipinteg option allow the generation of
> >>>>a source tarball without requ
On Fri 30 Oct 2009 22:21 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Fri 30 Oct 2009 15:29 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>Loui Chang wrote:
> >>>On Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:40 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>>Jeff wrote:
> >>>>>&g
Arrays were being converted to strings, then back to arrays rather than
being copied directly as arrays.
This closes FS#16871
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts
On Mon 09 Nov 2009 21:50 +0100, Xavier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > Arrays were being converted to strings, then back to arrays rather than
> > being copied directly as arrays.
> >
> > This closes FS#16871
> >
> > Signed-o
On Thu 06 May 2010 10:51 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> 2) cd1378d makepkg: rework --skipinteg
>
> This is very, very, VERY useful. I did not have makepkg-git on my
> new computer earlier this week and the current makepkg behaviour
> annoyed me A LOT.
>
> This is particularly useful when testing out
On Thu 06 May 2010 12:09 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 06/05/10 11:41, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Thu 06 May 2010 10:51 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>2) cd1378d makepkg: rework --skipinteg
> >>
> >>This is very, very, VERY useful. I did not have makepkg-git on m
On Thu 06 May 2010 12:58 +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > This relates to package integrity. I guess I mean to present the odd
> > possibility where you trust the person who signed the package, but the
> > it hasn't e
On Thu 06 May 2010 15:59 +1200, Jonathan Conder wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 10:51 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > 3) 5d911ae makepkg: allow skipping integrity checks when making source
> > package
> >
> > And here is the fun one... "makepkg --source" currently requires
> > checking all checksum
On Fri 07 May 2010 09:42 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Fr> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Daenyth Blank
> wrote:
> > Fail.
> Could have sworn I tested it and it worked during initial dev... I'll
> go over it soon when I have some time and resubmit.
I think your email client is causing a pro
On Sat 15 May 2010 08:57 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 08:48, Xavier Chantry
> wrote:
> > Did you follow
> > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Super_Quick_Git_Guide#Sending_patches
> > ?
> I'm using send-email, but routing it through gmail rather than a local
> smtp se
On Sat 15 May 2010 09:28 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:17, Xavier Chantry
> wrote:
> > If you mean that you tried git smtp client directly, then try to debug
> > /usr/lib/git-core/git-send-email to see what happens with the + :)
> > Did you try to quote / escape it diff
On Fri 04 Jun 2010 00:24 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> With commit 5dffef78, the repo database always has a symlink
> of the form reponame.db. Use that filename and let libarchive
> determine the compression type.
Hmm. I was wondering why couldn't pacman be programmed to understand a
compressed re
On Thu 03 Jun 2010 10:02 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Fri 04 Jun 2010 00:24 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >> With commit 5dffef78, the repo database always has a symlink
> >> of the form reponame.db. Use that
On Fri 04 Jun 2010 11:42 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 04/06/10 10:25, Dan McGee wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>Can anyone think of an actual use of $startdir in PKGBUILDs?
> >
> >It is used in VCS builds on occasion as the location of the dowloaded
> >repo so that bu
On Sat 05 Jun 2010 12:44 -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
> commit a66f8dbbb1cd3347b8ea218bcc373bafbacd814c
> Author: ??(Gan Lu)
> Date: Sat Jun 5 11:27:45 2010 -0500
Looks like the mailer can't handle chinese.
On Sat 05 Jun 2010 11:56 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Sat 05 Jun 2010 12:44 -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
> >> commit a66f8dbbb1cd3347b8ea218bcc373bafbacd814c
> >> Author: ??(Gan Lu)
> >> Date: Sat Jun
On Sat 05 Jun 2010 11:56 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Sat 05 Jun 2010 12:44 -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
> >> commit a66f8dbbb1cd3347b8ea218bcc373bafbacd814c
> >> Author: ??(Gan Lu)
> >> Date: Sat Jun
On Thu 17 Jun 2010 09:19 -0430, Andres P wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 17/06/10 23:35, Andres P wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Um... no it does not... sudo -l does not ask for a password even with
> >>> tim
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> I think I have found the issue here. We obviously have a NOPASSWD
> entry in our sudoers file so "sudo -l" does not require a password.
>
> So the bug is confirmed. However the fix is not fully functional as
> if I have sudo installed but can
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:19 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 18/06/10 01:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>I think I have found the issue here. We obviously have a NOPASSWD
> >>entry in our sudoers file so "sudo
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:37 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 18/06/10 09:12, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:19 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>On 18/06/10 01:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> >>>Why not just take sudo and asroot out of the equation and treat makepkg
On Thu 17 Jun 2010 19:09 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> Correct. There is really no way to avoid being root here; you are
> going to touch everything on the system *and* you need arbitrary
> command execution.
>
> /* geteuid undefined in CYGWIN */
> uid_t myuid = geteuid();
> ..
> /* check if
On Thu 24 Jun 2010 18:28 +0200, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
> On 17.06.2010 17:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >> I think I have found the issue here. We obviously have a NOPASSWD
> >> entry in our sudoers file so "sudo
On Fri 25 Jun 2010 09:18 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 25/06/10 02:58, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Thu 24 Jun 2010 18:28 +0200, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
> >>On 17.06.2010 17:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> >>>On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>
On Fri 25 Jun 2010 12:09 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> I said "go away, do some packaging" not just go away... Automatic
> dependency checking, installation (and removal) is an essential part
> of makepkg. I doubt any heavy makepkg user would disagree with me
> there. So what would moving it to a
On Wed 30 Jun 2010 20:08 -0430, Andres P wrote:
> Also, how do I unsubscribe from this shitty list? ;)
Heyy. Don't be so rude now. The list isn't that bad.
http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Cheers.
On Tue 03 Aug 2010 11:22 +0200, vlad wrote:
> Here is a mail I sent to the arch-general list containing a patch for
> makepkg which generates a .SRCINFO file when running "makepkg --source".
> Below I'll make some more comments, present some more ideas on this
> topic.
>
> As you see this file cons
On Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:59 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> The checking of the package for $srcdir references was overly
> sensitive and gave a lot of what appear to be false positives with
> binary files (in particular with debugging symbols kept).
>
> Restrict the search for $srcdir to non-binary file
On Thu 30 Sep 2010 12:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 30/09/10 11:56, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:59 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>The checking of the package for $srcdir references was overly
> >>sensitive and gave a lot of what appear to be false posi
On Thu 30 Sep 2010 12:38 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 30/09/10 12:26, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Thu 30 Sep 2010 12:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>On 30/09/10 11:56, Loui Chang wrote:
> >>>On Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:59 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>>The c
On Sun 16 Jan 2011 22:23 -0800, Westley Martínez wrote:
> Hello I'm Anikom15 and I'm new. You might know me from the Arch Linux
> forums but whatever.
>
> I'm interested in helping develop pacman considering the fact I've been
> using the program for so long I figure I should give something back,
On Sun 13 Feb 2011 17:05 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:42:38AM +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:22:54 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> > > with pacman -Qi or pacman -Si we show the person who packaged it, but
> > > not the maintainer.
> > > This m
On Sun 20 Feb 2011 01:24 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 20/02/11 00:33, IgnorantGuru wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:46:57 +1000
> >Allan McRae wrote:
> >
> >>Or is it less secure to write our own code (reviewed by perhaps two
> >>people total) to launch and parse the output of gpg or use the
> >
71 matches
Mail list logo
