Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Daniel Wallace
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > [2015-10-17 21:02:00 +0200] Sébastien Luttringer: > > Q: We will support old packages? > > A: No. Nothing change. We already have to check when people report bugs > > they upgraded their system to the last version. > > I note that we provide

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Gaetan Bisson
[2015-10-17 21:02:00 +0200] Sébastien Luttringer: > Q: We will support old packages? > A: No. Nothing change. We already have to check when people report bugs > they upgraded their system to the last version. I note that we provide aur.archlinux.org as a service to the community, but with a big wa

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Gaetan Bisson
[2015-10-17 21:02:00 +0200] Sébastien Luttringer: > More than one year ago[1] we started to discuss making the Arch > Rollback Machine more official. There were pros and cons and I would > give us the opportunity to move forward. I think this is great. You've now been running that project unoffici

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Allan McRae
On 18/10/15 05:02, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > ARM was renamed to Archlinux Archive, Can you at least write the name of our distribution correctly? It has two words, not one. A

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Sven-Hendrik Haase
I like that project. However, why would we need a new server? Can't we use the space and bandwidth of an existing host? I'm not too knowledgeable about our current servers so maybe Florian could shed some light on that. The script seems fairly manageable and you already provide systemd stuff and e

[arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

2015-10-17 Thread Sébastien Luttringer
Hello, More than one year ago[1] we started to discuss making the Arch Rollback Machine more official. There were pros and cons and I would give us the opportunity to move forward. ARM was renamed to Archlinux Archive, following suggestions made earlier. The ALA acronym is now preferred to avoid

Re: [arch-dev-public] agetpkg in [extra]

2015-10-17 Thread Rashif Ray Rahman
On 17 October 2015 at 20:24, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > [extra] is where devs push their packages and maintain them. Likewise > with [community] and TUs. Nothing more. > > I don't really care where agetpkg should land; both [extra] and > [community] are official repositories and they offer the

Re: [arch-dev-public] agetpkg in [extra]

2015-10-17 Thread Sébastien Luttringer
On Sat, 2015-10-17 at 13:08 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > Sébastien, > > is there any reason why agetpkg landed directly in [extra]? Your > mirror > isn't hosted as an official Arch project so far, despite our previous > discussions on IRC. I don't mind its presence in [community], but > [

[arch-dev-public] agetpkg in [extra]

2015-10-17 Thread Bartłomiej Piotrowski
Sébastien, is there any reason why agetpkg landed directly in [extra]? Your mirror isn't hosted as an official Arch project so far, despite our previous discussions on IRC. I don't mind its presence in [community], but [extra] is definitely too much for now. Bartłomiej signature.asc Description:

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]

2015-10-17 Thread Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 5 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 7 fully signed off packages * 26 packages missing signoffs * 6 packages older than 14 days (Note: t