Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
On 2/12/20 12:58 AM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of > importance (no claim its a good view). > > So, here's a few that might benefit from an update: >Cal Pkg > NameVers Updt Flag CVers DateAge Age Pkger > --- -- -- --- -- --- - > thunderbird 68.4.2 200126 200211 68.5.0 200210 16 15 LP > bash5.0.011 191118 200208 5.0.016 200207 85 81 EF > fail2ban0.10.5 200112 200112 0.11.1 200111 30 -1 FY > ipset 7.4 191202 200109 7.5 200109 71 38 SL > samba 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > smbclient 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11 190212 455 384 EF > biber 1:2.13 191101 191202 2.14191201 102 30 RO > diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW > libelf 0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > refind-efi 0.11.3 180723 181119 0.11.4 191112 568 112 TP [1] > > [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon > > Cal Age = days since last update > Pkg Age = days between current and arch release > Cvers = Current version > Hi gene, thanks for taking time and trying to improve something in our distro, however I believe your numbers are, lets say: suboptimal You are listing a cal age, which just doesn't say anything as it doesn't matter how long ago the last update was if the upstream release cycle is like that. On top you list Pkg Age as the delta between the latest upstream release and the last packaging date of the current version in the repos. This metric again says nothing important. You are collecting the wrong metrics, what is interesting is "today minus upstream release date" to get the delta how long a package version in the repo is not the latest available one. Maybe a second row for how many days passed since it has been flagged, but the above age is just nothing useful to take into account. Actually what does thunderbird even do on this list? I guess because its "Age" is 15? Which exactly proves my point above: Version 68.5.0, first offered to channel users on February 11, 2020 which was exactly 1 day ago. On top this data set is inconsistent, thunderbird was released 200211 and not as listed 200210 plus refind-efi was not released 191112 but 181112 and I didn't even check any other numbers besides those two. cheers, Levente https://sourceforge.net/projects/refind/files/0.11.4/ https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/68.5.0/releasenotes/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 14:13:02 EET Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > On 2/12/20 3:27 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various > > rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated > > version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make > > sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have > > to rebuild it twice. [1] > > > > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406 > > Thanks for the comments Jelle > > For libelf - very valid - and it's also not much out of date either. > > The version of samba in testing is 4.11.2 and it has been there since > last November and is now also behind current version (4.11.6). > > Understand folks being busy for sure. In case of samba and refind-efi > perhaps the packager could use some additional help? > > thanks again! > > gene The issue with rEFInd is that after it merged zstd support for the Btrfs driver, it doesn't build with TianoCore EDK2 libs (it works with GNU-EFI libs). Unfortunately the rEFInd developer cannot reproduce the issue. See https://sourceforge.net/p/refind/discussion/general/thread/0317e2e8/#6c20/f575/cecb signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
On 2/12/20 3:27 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various > rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated > version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make > sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have > to rebuild it twice. [1] > > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406 > Thanks for the comments Jelle For libelf - very valid - and it's also not much out of date either. The version of samba in testing is 4.11.2 and it has been there since last November and is now also behind current version (4.11.6). Understand folks being busy for sure. In case of samba and refind-efi perhaps the packager could use some additional help? thanks again! gene
Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
Hey Jude, On 2020-02-12 03:39:23 (-0500), Jude DaShiell wrote: > tintin-alteraeon can be added to that list since it no longer builds. this is the second time I've noticed you're bringing up AUR packages on arch-general. This mailing list is not about unsupported packages. If you would like to discuss AUR packages, please do that on aur-general [1], as those packages are not of concern to Arch Linux as a distribution. Best, David [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/aur-general -- https://sleepmap.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
tintin-alteraeon can be added to that list since it no longer builds. On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:27:45 > From: Jelle van der Waa > Reply-To: General Discussion about Arch Linux > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux > Subject: Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages > > On 02/11/20 at 06:58pm, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > > Hi > > > > Thank you again for all the great work managing and keeping > > packages up to date. It is a significant amount of work and continues > > to make Arch a really standout distro. > > > > That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages. > > > > I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of > > importance (no claim its a good view). > > > > So, here's a few that might benefit from an update: > >Cal Pkg > > NameVers Updt Flag CVers DateAge Age Pkger > > --- -- -- --- -- --- - > > thunderbird 68.4.2 200126 200211 68.5.0 200210 16 15 LP > > bash5.0.011 191118 200208 5.0.016 200207 85 81 EF > > fail2ban0.10.5 200112 200112 0.11.1 200111 30 -1 FY > > ipset 7.4 191202 200109 7.5 200109 71 38 SL > > samba 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > > smbclient 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > > ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11 190212 455 384 EF > > biber 1:2.13 191101 191202 2.14191201 102 30 RO > > diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW > > libelf 0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > > elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > > refind-efi 0.11.3 180723 181119 0.11.4 191112 568 112 TP [1] > > > > [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon > > > > Cal Age = days since last update > > Pkg Age = days between current and arch release > > Cvers = Current version > > > > Packagers > > EF Evangelos Foutras > > FY Felix Yan > > SL S?bastien Luttringer > > TP Tobias Powalowski > > AW Alad Wenter > > RO R?my Oudompheng > > LP Levente Polyak > > > > The packages that really standout to me are refind-efi and samba. > > > > Hopefully this is useful. Thanks and happy updating! > > Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various > rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated > version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make > sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have > to rebuild it twice. [1] > > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406 > > --
Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
On 02/11/20 at 06:58pm, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > Hi > > Thank you again for all the great work managing and keeping > packages up to date. It is a significant amount of work and continues > to make Arch a really standout distro. > > That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages. > > I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of > importance (no claim its a good view). > > So, here's a few that might benefit from an update: >Cal Pkg > NameVers Updt Flag CVers DateAge Age Pkger > --- -- -- --- -- --- - > thunderbird 68.4.2 200126 200211 68.5.0 200210 16 15 LP > bash5.0.011 191118 200208 5.0.016 200207 85 81 EF > fail2ban0.10.5 200112 200112 0.11.1 200111 30 -1 FY > ipset 7.4 191202 200109 7.5 200109 71 38 SL > samba 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > smbclient 4.10.10 191114 191101 4.11.6 200128 89 75 TP > ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11 190212 455 384 EF > biber 1:2.13 191101 191202 2.14191201 102 30 RO > diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW > libelf 0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178 191126 85 8 EF > refind-efi 0.11.3 180723 181119 0.11.4 191112 568 112 TP [1] > > [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon > > Cal Age = days since last update > Pkg Age = days between current and arch release > Cvers = Current version > > Packagers > EF Evangelos Foutras > FY Felix Yan > SL Sébastien Luttringer > TP Tobias Powalowski > AW Alad Wenter > RO Rémy Oudompheng > LP Levente Polyak > > The packages that really standout to me are refind-efi and samba. > > Hopefully this is useful. Thanks and happy updating! Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have to rebuild it twice. [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406 -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: PGP signature
