[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 44 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 6 fully signed off packages * 48 packages missing signoffs * 2 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (44 total) == * openresolv-3.5.5-1 (any) * dialog-1.2_20130523-2 (i686) * dialog-1.2_20130523-2 (x86_64) * slib-3b3-3 (any) * aisleriot-3.8.0-1 (i686) * autogen-5.17.4-1 (i686) * bluez-5.5-2 (i686) * brltty-4.5-4 (i686) * gnucash-2.4.13-1 (i686) * gpsd-3.9-3 (i686) * graphviz-2.30.1-5 (i686) * guile-2.0.9-1 (i686) * gvfs-1.16.2-2 (i686) * kismet-2013_03_R1b-2 (i686) * libbluedevil-1.9.3-2 (i686) * networkmanager-0.9.8.0-5 (i686) * obexd-1:0.46-2 (i686) * openobex-1.7-6 (i686) * pilot-link-0.12.5-5 (i686) * pulseaudio-4.0-1 (i686) * qemu-1.5.0-4 (i686) * texmacs-1.0.7.19-2 (i686) * aisleriot-3.8.0-1 (x86_64) * autogen-5.17.4-1 (x86_64) * bluez-5.5-2 (x86_64) * brltty-4.5-4 (x86_64) * gnucash-2.4.13-1 (x86_64) * gpsd-3.9-3 (x86_64) * graphviz-2.30.1-5 (x86_64) * guile-2.0.9-1 (x86_64) * gvfs-1.16.2-2 (x86_64) * kismet-2013_03_R1b-2 (x86_64) * libbluedevil-1.9.3-2 (x86_64) * networkmanager-0.9.8.0-5 (x86_64) * obexd-1:0.46-2 (x86_64) * openobex-1.7-6 (x86_64) * pilot-link-0.12.5-5 (x86_64) * pulseaudio-4.0-1 (x86_64) * qemu-1.5.0-4 (x86_64) * texmacs-1.0.7.19-2 (x86_64) * bluez4-4.101-1 (i686) * guile1.8-1.8.8-3 (i686) * bluez4-4.101-1 (x86_64) * guile1.8-1.8.8-3 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (3 total) == * openresolv-3.5.5-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * dialog-1.2_20130523-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dialog-1.2_20130523-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (41 total) == * slib-3b3-3 (any) 0/2 signoffs * aisleriot-3.8.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * autogen-5.17.4-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bluez-5.5-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * brltty-4.5-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gnucash-2.4.13-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gpsd-3.9-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * graphviz-2.30.1-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * guile-2.0.9-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gvfs-1.16.2-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * kismet-2013_03_R1b-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libbluedevil-1.9.3-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * networkmanager-0.9.8.0-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * obexd-1:0.46-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * openobex-1.7-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * pilot-link-0.12.5-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * pulseaudio-4.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qemu-1.5.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * swig-2.0.10-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * texmacs-1.0.7.19-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vim-7.3.1105-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * aisleriot-3.8.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * autogen-5.17.4-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bluez-5.5-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * brltty-4.5-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnucash-2.4.13-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gpsd-3.9-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * graphviz-2.30.1-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * guile-2.0.9-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gvfs-1.16.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kismet-2013_03_R1b-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libbluedevil-1.9.3-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-0.9.8.0-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * obexd-1:0.46-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * openobex-1.7-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * pilot-link-0.12.5-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * pulseaudio-4.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qemu-1.5.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * swig-2.0.10-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * texmacs-1.0.7.19-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vim-7.3.1105-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (4 total) == * bluez4-4.101-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * guile1.8-1.8.8-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bluez4-4.101-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * guile1.8-1.8.8-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (6 total) == * libedit-20130601_3.1-1 (i686) * libffi-3.0.13-3 (i686) * syslinux-5.01-4 (i686) * libedit-20130601_3.1-1 (x86_64) * libffi-3.0.13-3 (x86_64) * syslinux-5.01-4 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * syslinux-5.01-4 (i686), since 2013-05-19 * syslinux-5.01-4 (x86_64), since 2013-05-19 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
[arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
Hi, I just noticed that a couple of packages that have been marked complete on the TODO list still seem to contain initscripts rc.d files: $ pkgfile -g '/etc/rc.d/*' | egrep -v '/(bftpd|ifplugd|ppp)$' extra/bluez extra/ntp extra/tomcat6 extra/x11vnc community/couchdb community/wesnoth I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? Regards, Lukas
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
On Wednesday 05 June 2013 12:37:54 Lukas Fleischer wrote: I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. -- Andrea Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
[2013-06-05 12:44:03 +0200] Andrea Scarpino: On Wednesday 05 June 2013 12:37:54 Lukas Fleischer wrote: I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:55:14PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: [2013-06-05 12:44:03 +0200] Andrea Scarpino: On Wednesday 05 June 2013 12:37:54 Lukas Fleischer wrote: I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... Well, it is a bit inconsistent to rebuild all but 5 packages in our repositories. Also, I just wanted to make sure that people double-check their packages. If all of these still contain rc.d scripts due to removing them on trunk only, I am fine with that (as long as none of the packages in question are only updated once every decade). -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 01:06:59PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:55:14PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: [2013-06-05 12:44:03 +0200] Andrea Scarpino: On Wednesday 05 June 2013 12:37:54 Lukas Fleischer wrote: I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... Well, it is a bit inconsistent to rebuild all but 5 packages in our repositories. Also, I just wanted to make sure that people double-check their packages. If all of these still contain rc.d scripts due to removing them on trunk only, I am fine with that (as long as none of the packages in question are only updated once every decade). Ok, looks like all of them are fine -- apart from couchdb. Sergej: Could you please check that the rc.d script is removed when upgrading to 1.3.0? Maybe you just forgot to rebuild 1.2.2-3 after adding the rc.d change to the PKGBUILD. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
On 5 June 2013 13:34, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 01:06:59PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:55:14PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: [2013-06-05 12:44:03 +0200] Andrea Scarpino: On Wednesday 05 June 2013 12:37:54 Lukas Fleischer wrote: I saw an updated version of bluez in [testing] that no longer contains these files. Can someone please have a look at ntp, tomcat6, x11vnc, couchdb and wesnoth? I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... Well, it is a bit inconsistent to rebuild all but 5 packages in our repositories. Also, I just wanted to make sure that people double-check their packages. If all of these still contain rc.d scripts due to removing them on trunk only, I am fine with that (as long as none of the packages in question are only updated once every decade). Ok, looks like all of them are fine -- apart from couchdb. Sergej: Could you please check that the rc.d script is removed when upgrading to 1.3.0? Maybe you just forgot to rebuild 1.2.2-3 after adding the rc.d change to the PKGBUILD. -- Gaetan extra/tomcat6 yes: already done in trunk. Will be shipped with next release that should not be long now.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
[2013-06-05 13:06:59 +0200] Lukas Fleischer: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:55:14PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... Well, it is a bit inconsistent to rebuild all but 5 packages in our repositories. And it is a waste of CPU, bandwidth, and time for everyone to rebuild packages simply to remove a worthless 4kB file. There is no reason not to wait for a proper rebuild to be actually required. As you can see, out of my 12 packages on that TODO list, in just 20 days, only two have not yet had another rebuild opportunity... -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages still containing rc.d scripts
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:01:02PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: [2013-06-05 13:06:59 +0200] Lukas Fleischer: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:55:14PM +1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote: I guess that those have been updated on trunk only. That's indeed what I did with my packages (including ntp and x11vnc); there is no hurry to push this to the repos that I can see... Well, it is a bit inconsistent to rebuild all but 5 packages in our repositories. And it is a waste of CPU, bandwidth, and time for everyone to rebuild packages simply to remove a worthless 4kB file. There is no reason not to wait for a proper rebuild to be actually required. As you can see, out of my 12 packages on that TODO list, in just 20 days, only two have not yet had another rebuild opportunity... So dozens of developers and TUs wasted CPU, bandwidth and time because it was unclear how to do the rebuild/commit. I am not saying that everyone should rebuild their packages. What I am saying is that we could be a bit more consistent and add one simple sentence like * Only fix in trunk -- no need to rebuild. * Please rebuild and push to [staging]. * Please rebuild and move directly to [core]/[extra]/[community]. to every TODO list. I know that is already done for a lot of TODO lists but at lease 4 out of the 10 latest lists to not include such information. Even in simple cases (such as SONAME bumps) where it is pretty obvious what to do, it might help new Trusted Users and developers who are unfamiliar with how we do rebuilds. And it avoids inconsistency in cases like this one. It is just one sentence. Literally takes 5 seconds to add it. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Bluez 5
Am 01.06.2013 11:23, schrieb Tom Gundersen: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: I would like to push Bluez 5 to the repos, and rename Bluez 4 to 'bluez4'. Some things still require Bluez 4, and the two can not be installed together, so this is how I propose to do it. We will have the following packages: bluez4: the bluetooth daemon, providing the old dbus interface (a pared down version of our current 'bluez' package) bluez: the bluetooth daemon, providing the new dbus interface (not backwards compatible) bluez-libs: the libraries split off from the bluez package (backwards compatible) bluez-utils: the (development and testing) tools split off from the bluez package (backwards compatible) All packages currently depending on 'bluez' will have to be rebuilt to depend on 'bluez-libs' (most packages), 'bluez4' (at least libbluedevil) or 'bluez' (if anything has support for this). Packages that simply makedepend do not need to be rebuilt, just change the dependency in SVN (there is no soname bump). I put bluez/bluez4 in [staging] so we can move ahead with this. -t Please don't move qemu with bluez move. qemu 1.5.0 is a bit to buggy to leave testing repository. If you move i'll bump extra 1.4.x with correct depends. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Bluez 5
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com wrote: Please don't move qemu with bluez move. qemu 1.5.0 is a bit to buggy to leave testing repository. If you move i'll bump extra 1.4.x with correct depends. I guess you could put qemu 1.4.1-4 with correct depends into [staging] right now, so that it's ready to be moved right to [extra] once bluez 5 leaves [testing].
