Re: [arch-dev-public] Autumn extra cleaning

Hi On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 10:16 PM Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > It was suggested as part of this year's spring cleanup of [community] > that we should be have a cleanup in [core]/[extra] and move packages > downwards into [community]. > > This round only

Re: [arch-dev-public] Autumn extra cleaning

Hi On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 11:11 PM Daurnimator via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 16:16, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public > wrote: > > TUs can notify which packages they are interested to maintain in [community] > > > lua51 > > lua52 > > Sure (though no upstream updates

[arch-dev-public] Anatol is inactive due to situation in Belarus

Hello folks My name is Anatol Pomozov and I am an Arch Linux developer. I've been quiet for a couple of weeks now and will probably stay away from my Arch Linux/pacman (+bcc:pacman-dev@) duties for a bit more. Please feel free to take care of my packages if it's needed. The reason

Re: [arch-dev-public] Use detached package signatures by default

Hi Giancarlo On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:35 PM Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > This could be maintained as a patch on the package, it doesn't necessarily > have to be > on pacman's code itself. Just so we make this transition as painless as > possible to users. Having a seamless transition to the

Re: [arch-dev-public] Use detached package signatures by default

Hi On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:22 PM Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On 9/7/20 1:05 pm, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > > Given this information I would like to propose to stop using embedded > > signatures and move to detached signatures by default. This will >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Use detached package signatures by default

Hi Jelle On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:00 AM Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > On 09/07/2020 05:05, Anatol Pomozov via arch-dev-public wrote: > > TLDR; let’s start using detached package signatures to make system > > updates faster. > > > > Hi folks, > > > > S

[arch-dev-public] Use detached package signatures by default

TLDR; let’s start using detached package signatures to make system updates faster. Hi folks, Some time ago there was a discussion at IRC where someone (Allan maybe?) proposed to stop using embedded PGP signatures in favor of detached signature files. I would like to bring this idea here and

Re: [arch-dev-public] RFC: go-pie removal in favour of GOFLAGS

Hi Morten On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote: > > Yo! > > After being lazy for a few weeks, I got around to writing the new guidelines > for > Go packages. Currently it's a draft and I'd love if people read through it and > ack/nacked > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] RFC: go-pie removal in favour of GOFLAGS

Hello On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:24 PM Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:09:07PM -0700, Anatol Pomozov via arch-dev-public > wrote: > > > Notice that `-mod=vendor` is also added to `GOFLAGS`. > > > > Most of th

Re: [arch-dev-public] RFC: go-pie removal in favour of GOFLAGS

Hi On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:16 PM Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:09:07PM -0700, Public mailing list for Arch Linux > development wrote: > > Hello Morten > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 5:38 AM Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public > > wrote: > > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] RFC: go-pie removal in favour of GOFLAGS

Hello Morten On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 5:38 AM Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote: > > > # Introduction > > To enable PIE compilation, we have relied on a patched version of the go > compiler which has been distributed as `go-pie` since around 2017. However, > full > RELRO support for go

Re: [arch-dev-public] Todos for language specific rebuilds

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On 2020-01-12 at 00:04, arch-dev-public@archlinux.org wrote: > On 1/10/20 4:42 PM, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I would like to propose that we create todos for rebuilds of language > > specific

Re: [arch-dev-public] Todos for language specific rebuilds

Hello On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:58 AM Dave Reisner wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 16:43 Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public < > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > I would like to propose that we create todos for rebuilds of language > > specific packages. > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Semi-away till 2019

Hi On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:36 AM Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public wrote: > > Hi all, > > As I have free time shortage lately, I think it's fair to officially say > I will be in semi-away mode till 2019. I will try my best to keep up > with uncomplicated pkgver bumps for packages I

Re: [arch-dev-public] Moving gcc7 into [community] for CUDA

Hi > Agreed, we're moving in a net positive direction. We still have two > versions of gcc, but at least the old version is a *newer* old version. > > (We could name it gcc-cuda if that makes people happier?) gcc-cuda will probably introduce a lot of confusion. Let's use standard naming practice

[arch-dev-public] LLVM 6.0 rebuild

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Arch Website Notification wrote: > The todo list "LLVM 6.0" has had the following packages added to it for which > you are a maintainer: > > > * community/crystal (x86_64) - > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/crystal/ > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] PSA: third-party gems have been split from 'ruby' package

Hello There is actually another big third_party component that is currently shipped together with ruby package - rubygems. Rubygems is developed as a project [1] separately from ruby. Once in a while ruby developers check-in rubygems into their source tree [2]. And up until now we used ruby's

Re: [arch-dev-public] PSA: third-party gems have been split from 'ruby' package

Hi Christian On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Christian Rebischke wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 04:36:32PM -0800, Public mailing list for Arch Linux > development wrote: >> Hello folks >> >> There been a packaging issue with 'ruby' package that annoyed me for a

[arch-dev-public] PSA: third-party gems have been split from 'ruby' package

Hello folks There been a packaging issue with 'ruby' package that annoyed me for a while. The problem comes from the fact that ruby-lang.org source tarballs contain ruby sources itself *and* some third party packages from rubygems.org. The third-party gems shipped by 'ruby' tarball are: minitest,

Re: [arch-dev-public] Stepping back as Arch Linux developer

Hi Daniel Thank for all the work you've done for Arch! It was please for me to work with you. Have fun with your new interests and offline activities. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Daniel Isenmann wrote: > Hi there, > > that wasn't an easy decision, but after months

[arch-dev-public] fuse packages reorganization

Hi folks I want to give you heads up about fuse packages reorganization. fuse project had a major release recently - fuse v3 is officially out [1]. Following recommendations from the upstream project [1] I renamed package 'fuse' to 'fuse2' and added 'fuse3' package. Common files from these

Re: [arch-dev-public] Hooks rebuild #1

Hi On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Doug Newgard <scim...@archlinux.info> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:29:49 -0700 > Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dependencies like gtk-update-icon-cache/desktop-file-utils should be >> installed by those who

Re: [arch-dev-public] Hooks rebuild #1

Hi On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Balló György wrote: > 2016-04-28 6:28 GMT+02:00 keenerd : > >> Namcap 3.2.7 is released. It removes the old .install warnings and >> adds a new one if the .install does anything covered by a hook. >> > > Note that

Re: [arch-dev-public] Hooks rebuild #1

Hi On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > We are ready to start the first hooks rebuild. This rebuild covers > packages using these hooks: > > update-desktop-database > update-mime-database > install-info > glib-compile-schemes >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Hooks rebuild #1

Hi And another related question: are we going to have hooks for systemd-sysusers and systemd-tmpfiles? Quite a lot of packages packages use systemd-tmpfiles and it sounds like a good idea to move it to hooks.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Hooks rebuild #1

Hi On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > We are ready to start the first hooks rebuild. This rebuild covers > packages using these hooks: > > update-desktop-database > update-mime-database > install-info > glib-compile-schemes >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Accidentally broke /srv/ftp on nymeria

Hi On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Florian Pritz wrote: > Hi, > > I've accidentally removed some files from /srv/ftp on nymeria by running > a find -delete command with incorrectly ordered arguments. I'm currently > restoring from our backups and mirrors though this might

[arch-dev-public] Merging {g,}vim-python3 into {g,}vim package

Hi Currently vim split package creates several binary packages: vim-runtime (common runtime data) vim-minimal (vim without language bindings) vim (vim with ruby, lua language bindings + python2 support) vim-python3 (vim with ruby, lua language bindings + python3 support) gvim, gvim-python3

Re: [arch-dev-public] Merging {g,}vim-python3 into {g,}vim package

Hi On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Johannes Löthberg wrote: > No, what doesn't allow users to use both at the same time is vim not > supporting > it, which is why python3 support was added as a split package in the first > place. Let me to rephrase my statement to match

Re: [arch-dev-public] Merging {g,}vim-python3 into {g,}vim package

Hi On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyway the new version of vim is in [testing] please check and let me > know if you see any specific issues with python2/python3 bindings. Actually just found such case myself. :py import glib

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

Hi On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and push 3.x, which should > co-exist fine with 2.x. I suppose it's OK to break our naming > convention in cases like these. Why to break it? Just push new opencv and

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automated rebuild for ncurses 6.0 in progress

Hi Evangelos On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Evangelos Foutras wrote: > You can follow the progress at: https://rebuilds.foutrelis.com/ > > If anyone wants to tackle a build failure, you can commit the fix in > /trunk (without bumping pkgrel) and then click on the

Re: [arch-dev-public] git packages and checksums

Hi On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote: [2015-07-18 15:13:43 -0700] Anatol Pomozov: On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote: Instead I suggest we use the full commit hash. In the example above, that'd become something

Re: [arch-dev-public] git packages and checksums

Hi On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi, As more of our official packages use git sources, I'd like to suggest we always enforce some kind of checksum verification. More specifically, I'd like us to avoid using straightforward source arrays such as:

Re: [arch-dev-public] Packages added to todo list 'Perl 5.22'

Hi On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at wrote: On 02.06.2015 19:47, Gaetan Bisson wrote: What if I want perl to be in optdepends, not depends? Even if it is possible to put a versioned entry in optdeps (I don't know), it wouldn't help really because pacman

Re: [arch-dev-public] Dropping vi and adding vim-minimal to the installation image

Hi On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Evangelos Foutras evange...@foutrelis.com wrote: This was discussed about two years ago but no action was taken. The proposal is simple: - Drop the vi package from the repos - Add vim-minimal to the installation image Fine with me. Go ahead. This

Re: [arch-dev-public] [extra] Dropping ocaml packages

Hi Tobias On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi guys, I don't use it on any of my machines anymore, anyone who wants to step up? Else those are candidates for AUR/community. ocaml ocaml-compiler-libs I'll take care of ocaml.

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] New package: vte3-2.90

Hi The terminal plugin for Cairo Dock is now fully ported with the help of Anatol. I had a look at pantheon-terminal as well, but it's way out of my league. Changes are not straightforward for someone who does not speak Vala or C: some functions are deprecated and/or no longer available, and

Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] New package: vte3-2.90

Hi On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Evangelos Foutras evange...@foutrelis.com wrote: (I would really like opinions from our GNOME maintainers on this.) Seeing as vte3 0.38.0 in [testing] has a new API, I went ahead a created a todo list to rebuild the packages that depend on the old

Re: [arch-dev-public] Busy until mid-July, maybe?

Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi guys, I am currently rather busy and unable to invest time into packaging. This situation has been going on all June and will likely remain unchanged for a few weeks. In the meantime, can someone upgrade my

Re: [arch-dev-public] gcc-4.9 toolchain is now in [testing]

Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I have pushed the gcc-4.9 toolchain to the [testing] repo. There are a couple of testsuite failures remaining (detailed below). The binutils one I think is a false positive, the gcc one is unimportant. I am still

Re: [arch-dev-public] Looking for maintainers for a few packages

Hi On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I'm looking to offload a few packages so I can spend more time dealing with pacman (the patches pile up faster than I can deal with them and there are things I want to implement...). I essentially intend to keep

Re: [arch-dev-public] Upgrading Apache to 2.4

Hi On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote: One suggestion is creating the Apache 2.4 PKGBUILD first, then talk to Jan de Groot. If he should not be interested

Re: [arch-dev-public] Upgrading Apache to 2.4

Hi On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, One of my TU application proposals was updating apache package to 2.4. The 2.4 branch exists for 2 years, actively

Re: [arch-dev-public] Upgrading Apache to 2.4

Hi On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, One of my TU application proposals was updating apache package to 2.4. The 2.4 branch exists for 2 years, actively developed and is recommended by upstream. Taking into account that many distros moved

Re: [arch-dev-public] Upgrading Apache to 2.4

Hi On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote: One suggestion is creating the Apache 2.4 PKGBUILD first, then talk to Jan de Groot. If he should not be interested in the endeavor, talk to another dev. Good news is that I work with Jan and other devs on pushing

[arch-dev-public] Upgrading Apache to 2.4

Hi, One of my TU application proposals was updating apache package to 2.4. The 2.4 branch exists for 2 years, actively developed and is recommended by upstream. Taking into account that many distros moved to 2.4 already I do not expect serious problems with moving Arch to 2.4. I would like to