Re: [arch-general] GDM Locked
After the last Pacman -Syu, I can't login with gdm. As soon as I clikc on my username, the system seems to freeze... Although not completely: I can ping from other computer, but I can't ssh. Before I click on the username, the switch off icon at the right down corner works. Once I click on the username, nothing else works, and I neither can ctrl-alt-F1 to the console... Any suggestions/questions? I have removed GDM and installed SLIM. Now I can login, but the screen shows nothing... And if I try to CTRL-ALT-F1 to the console, the system locks again. It is not a GDM problem. If I run startx from the command line, X starts. Any advice? Best regards, Guillermo
Re: [arch-general] GDM Locked
On 06:51 Tue 19 Oct , Guillermo Leira wrote: After the last Pacman -Syu, I can't login with gdm. As soon as I clikc on my username, the system seems to freeze... Although not completely: I can ping from other computer, but I can't ssh. Before I click on the username, the switch off icon at the right down corner works. Once I click on the username, nothing else works, and I neither can ctrl-alt-F1 to the console... Any suggestions/questions? I have removed GDM and installed SLIM. Now I can login, but the screen shows nothing... And if I try to CTRL-ALT-F1 to the console, the system locks again. It is not a GDM problem. If I run startx from the command line, X starts. Any advice? Best regards, Guillermo Hi Guillermo, try and make yourself a new user. If that one can work with the X-part of your system - then some rights in your local $HOME directory are broken (.xinitrc would be a candidate for this kind of weird behaviour, but also .ICEauthority or .Xauthority). If of cause the new user account does have the same problems, your /etx/X11 or worse might have wrong user rights. Have also a look i a file called .xerrors, .xsession-errors - or something like that (can't remember the correct name anymore), there could be some hints in it, if it does exist, what your problem is. Best regards, Karl
Re: [arch-general] GDM Locked
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:56 AM, karl captainha...@i2pmail.org wrote: On 06:51 Tue 19 Oct , Guillermo Leira wrote: After the last Pacman -Syu, I can't login with gdm. As soon as I clikc on my username, the system seems to freeze... Although not completely: I can ping from other computer, but I can't ssh. Before I click on the username, the switch off icon at the right down corner works. Once I click on the username, nothing else works, and I neither can ctrl-alt-F1 to the console... Any suggestions/questions? I have removed GDM and installed SLIM. Now I can login, but the screen shows nothing... And if I try to CTRL-ALT-F1 to the console, the system locks again. It is not a GDM problem. If I run startx from the command line, X starts. Any advice? Best regards, Guillermo Hi Guillermo, try and make yourself a new user. If that one can work with the X-part of your system - then some rights in your local $HOME directory are broken (.xinitrc would be a candidate for this kind of weird behaviour, but also .ICEauthority or .Xauthority). If of cause the new user account does have the same problems, your /etx/X11 or worse might have wrong user rights. Have also a look i a file called .xerrors, .xsession-errors - or something like that (can't remember the correct name anymore), there could be some hints in it, if it does exist, what your problem is. Best regards, Karl When you run Slim, you also get a /var/log/slim.log to look at. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [arch-general] GDM Locked
On 06:51 Tue 19 Oct , Guillermo Leira wrote: After the last Pacman -Syu, I can't login with gdm. As soon as I clikc on my username, the system seems to freeze... Although not completely: I can ping from other computer, but I can't ssh. Before I click on the username, the switch off icon at the right down corner works. Once I click on the username, nothing else works, and I neither can ctrl-alt-F1 to the console... Any suggestions/questions? I have removed GDM and installed SLIM. Now I can login, but the screen shows nothing... And if I try to CTRL-ALT-F1 to the console, the system locks again. It is not a GDM problem. If I run startx from the command line, X starts. Any advice? Best regards, Guillermo The behaviour that switching to the console freezes the output happens normaly, when kernel mode settings aren't activated / functioning / vesa instead of the nouveau-driver (radeon, intel, whatever) is used. Have a look ... http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/KMS http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Nouveau Kind regards, Karl
Re: [arch-general] Upgrading while using a package (WAS: Re: pacman -Syu -- then tons of kio and kbuildsycoca warnings. Bug or coincidence?)
It would appear that on Oct 14, Thomas Bächler did say: My recommendations: 1) If you are upgrading your desktop environment, exit your session, quit your login manager and upgrade from the text console. I advise to run pacman -Sywu from the desktop and when the download finishes, run pacman -Su from the text console. OK, pardon my intrusion, but NOW I'm curious... I can understand the advantage of running pacman -Su from a text console (By which I don't mean using ctrl+alt+F[1-6] while the gui is still running.). It just makes sense, especially when pacman is expressly not a gui app. I can also understand that it might be better to run pacman -Sywu first as a separate operation. But why run the latter from the gui??? 2) Put all kernel-related packages on --ignore until you are planning to reboot. If you are not going to reboot, a kernel update will have no effect anyway. As a general rule I always reboot after any pacman -Su operation. If I wasn't prepared to reboot, I wouldn't upgrade my system. -- | --- ___ | 0 - Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^ J(tWdy)P |~\___/~ jtw...@ttlc.net
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] PostgreSQL 9.0.1 in [testing]
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: Community feedback welcome as well, but this is now in testing now that the Python rebuild has moved on. Please let me know (good and bad) how things are going with it so I can move it along to [extra]. Lots of stuff seems to be missing from the package (e.g. adminpack.so).
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] PostgreSQL 9.0.1 in [testing]
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: Community feedback welcome as well, but this is now in testing now that the Python rebuild has moved on. Please let me know (good and bad) how things are going with it so I can move it along to [extra]. Lots of stuff seems to be missing from the package (e.g. adminpack.so). It seems that the PKGBUILD is doing a make -C contrib uninstall instead of the required make -C contrib install.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] PostgreSQL 9.0.1 in [testing]
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: Community feedback welcome as well, but this is now in testing now that the Python rebuild has moved on. Please let me know (good and bad) how things are going with it so I can move it along to [extra]. Lots of stuff seems to be missing from the package (e.g. adminpack.so). I'm not sure why I had that `make -C contrib uninstall` line in there; I'll take a look. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] PostgreSQL 9.0.1 in [testing]
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: Community feedback welcome as well, but this is now in testing now that the Python rebuild has moved on. Please let me know (good and bad) how things are going with it so I can move it along to [extra]. Lots of stuff seems to be missing from the package (e.g. adminpack.so). I'm not sure why I had that `make -C contrib uninstall` line in there; I'll take a look. OK, stupidity should be fixed in 9.0.1-2. -Dan
[arch-general] python3 update
I think this is useful information: all soft installed from aur need to be reinstalled with changing line like python setup.py blah-blah to line python2 setup.py blah-blah. Because some packages still aren't touched(e.g. charm). So, something like that. --
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
Le 19/10/2010 16:50, Fess a écrit : I think this is useful information: all soft installed from aur need to be reinstalled with changing line like python setup.py blah-blah to line python2 setup.py blah-blah. Because some packages still aren't touched(e.g. charm). So, something like that. And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
2010/10/19 Clément Démoulins clem...@archivel.fr: Le 19/10/2010 16:50, Fess a écrit : I think this is useful information: all soft installed from aur need to be reinstalled with changing line like python setup.py blah-blah to line python2 setup.py blah-blah. Because some packages still aren't touched(e.g. charm). So, something like that. And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. ugh, the impending doom, why didn't i prepare!!! all my development with pyjamas has halted until i get pyjamas itself working under py3k (or 2.7 even...) :-( oh well, most things seemed to have gone smooth; thanks guys. hakuna matata, it means no worries :-), i should have been working on py3k compliance awhile back, no one to blame but me! /whips self and hopes it's not too much work C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
Am Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:54:16 +0200 schrieb Clément Démoulins clem...@archivel.fr: Le 19/10/2010 16:50, Fess a écrit : I think this is useful information: all soft installed from aur need to be reinstalled with changing line like python setup.py blah-blah to line python2 setup.py blah-blah. Because some packages still aren't touched(e.g. charm). So, something like that. And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. It would probably make sense to discuss this on aur-general instead of arch-general. And for the affected packages you should probably write comments in the AUR in case a maintainer doesn't read the mailing list or has forgotten to updating a package. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
El 19/10/10 07:13, Heiko Baums dijo: Am Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:54:16 +0200 schrieb Clément Démoulins clem...@archivel.fr: Le 19/10/2010 16:50, Fess a écrit : I think this is useful information: all soft installed from aur need to be reinstalled with changing line like python setup.py blah-blah to line python2 setup.py blah-blah. Because some packages still aren't touched(e.g. charm). So, something like that. And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. It would probably make sense to discuss this on aur-general instead of arch-general. And for the affected packages you should probably write comments in the AUR in case a maintainer doesn't read the mailing list or has forgotten to updating a package. maybe making a query to post a new comment on every AUR package that depends on python? -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:fa...@kiwwwi.com.ar omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.org pgpV0oUhHObgn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] PostgreSQL 9.0.1 in [testing]
On 10/19/10 10:35, Dan McGee wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jan Steffensjan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dan McGeedpmc...@gmail.com wrote: Community feedback welcome as well, but this is now in testing now that the Python rebuild has moved on. Please let me know (good and bad) how things are going with it so I can move it along to [extra]. Lots of stuff seems to be missing from the package (e.g. adminpack.so). I'm not sure why I had that `make -C contrib uninstall` line in there; I'll take a look. -Dan Allan broke it!
Re: [arch-general] pacman -Syu == NOT included depencies (with reasons): ...
On 10/18/2010 09:50 PM, Allan McRae wrote: On 19/10/10 12:43, David C. Rankin wrote: Here is a new one for me A system update tonight provided the following note: == NOT included depencies(with reasons): - sidplay - we do not have sidplay 2 series in repos; also it's somehow connected with resid i guess(not in repos also) this is the first time I've seen this and it looks like pacman got confused looking for the sidplay 2 series package. What I don't understand is: also it's somehow connected with resid i guess(not in repos also) What the heck is 'resid' and who is 'i' that is guessing?? (what?) That is a post_install message as a result of shitty packaging. File a bug report. Allan Done: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21354 -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
[arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. Regards, Max Countryman
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote: I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. You should read Allan's post[1] [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/ -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-general] Setuptools broken?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 20 October 2010 07:25, Norbert Zeh n...@cs.dal.ca wrote: Hi folks, With the python upgrade from 2.7 to 3.1, I ran into the following snag. gitosis from AUR depends on python and setuptools. Now, python = python3.1 now and setuptools installs in the python2.7 library tree. This was easy enough to fix, by simply replacing python with python2 in the gitosis PKGBUILD. However, I would expect that python2 will disappear completely somewhere down the road. What then? Moreover, being a purist, I would like to avoid having two python versions installed on my machine. So what's the deal with python3.1 and setuptools? Is the procedure for installing python packages different under 3.1 than under the old 2.x series, and there simply are no setuptools any more? If that's the case, I guess it's the responsibility of package maintainers to migrate to the setup used in python3.1. If setuptools is still what is needed in python3.1, shouldn't there now be two packages setuptools and setuptools2 that install in the library trees of python3.1 and python2.7, respectively? (I'm happy to file a bug report if this is indeed a bug.) Python 3 should be using distribute [1] instead of setuptools. Either way, you don't need to worry. Most software still require Python 2, and by the time we do drop python2, everything should be working. Well if you're still around in like 2019 when python2 disappears, we might have problems, but I wouldn't hold your breath. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Andrea Scarpino [2010.10.20 0201 +0200]: On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote: I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. You should read Allan's post[1] [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/ Thanks, Andrea and Ray. So it seems that everybody involved in this is aware that this is a long process with some glitches like the one I observed along the way, and I agree with Allan that the rationale behind the move is consistent with arch's focus on bleeding edge. Cheers, Norbert
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective. Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable. Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes. I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts! On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote: I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. You should read Allan's post[1] [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/ -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… I wanted to also clarify something or ask if someone could possibly clarify for me: where has it been established that Python 3 will become the replacement for the default Python binary? Is there a possibility that the standard convention might become python and python3 as binaries, where python is 2.7.x and python3 is the latest release of 3? I'm sure that this has already been discussed elsewhere or within the Python community itself, so if anyone could just point me in the direction I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 20:36, Max Countryman m...@me.com wrote: It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… I wanted to also clarify something or ask if someone could possibly clarify for me: where has it been established that Python 3 will become the replacement for the default Python binary? Is there a possibility that the standard convention might become python and python3 as binaries, where python is 2.7.x and python3 is the latest release of 3? I'm sure that this has already been discussed elsewhere or within the Python community itself, so if anyone could just point me in the direction I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 At the time of writing (July 4, 2010), the final 2.7 release is out, with a statement of extended support for this end-of-life release. The 2.x branch will see no new major releases after that. 3.x is under active and continued development, with 3.1 already available and 3.2 due for release around the turn of the year. 3.x is the newest branch of Python and the intended future of the language.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Max Countryman m...@me.com wrote: First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective. Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable. in most cases you can probably do whats needed to get insert here to just use python2 instead. i'm a developer by profession... and this whole thing is pretty disruptive to meh w3rk flow... but hey, we wouldn't be here if we didn't expect these things, right? :-) Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes. AFAIK, py3k is the _only_ thing recommended for new development. the 2.x series is frozen; 3.x is the clear path forward... we've all known this for some time, and some of us procrastinated :-) [me]. the current version is 3.1.2... i think it's past the .0 bugs; sluggish libraries have little to do with the interpreter itself. I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts! as annoying as this whole thing is to my projects, i understand and support the decision 100%. sooner is always better than later... when our stuff is solid again, other distro's will be dealing with the same thing. it's inevitable, Smith. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 20/10/10 10:25, Max Countryman wrote: First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective. Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable. I turns out that only Debian does not provide a /usr/bin/python2 symlink (out of major distro), so portability issues are a lot less than I thought anyway. Besides, if you are using /usr/bin/python you have no idea whether you are getting python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and now 3.1... So if you really need portability you are going to have to deal with that anyway. Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes. Python-3.x is what upstream is developing. python-2.7 is only bug fixes. So the switch makes sense given that is the future of python. Note we still have a python-2.7 package and will for a very long time... I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern In Arch the [testing] repo is only for testing what intends to immediately go to the main repo. Leavin stuff in there is a right pain in the arse as you have to build everything twice to update a package (once for [extra], once for [testing]). Arch is bleeding edge. We do things first. We experience the pain before others. That what makes us full of awesome. Allan
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name python for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as python3. Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Apologies, link cut in original quote: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Max Countryman wrote: I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name python for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as python3. Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the python package. Currently it only provides python3 and not a version so the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get around to that before this exits [testing] Um... did you perhaps not get around to it? :: Replace python3 with extra/python? [Y/n] error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: pyqt-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 :: sip-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 ...anybody?
