Re: [arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public]

[2018-01-29 22:00:28 +0100] Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public:
> They even implemented a subsystem on Windows 10 for executing natively
> ELF binaries on Windows. This system is based on docker images and some
> nice guys from Microsoft have asked Allan and me if Arch Linux would be
> interested to participate in this project.
> 
> The steps for getting into the project are:
> 
> * Signup in the Microsoft Appstore (we would get a free voucher if we
>   want to participate) as Organization (we need the ok from one of our
>   trademark holders for this step)
> * modifying our docker container a little bit
> * pushing it into the microsoft appstore

Setups like this make me uncomfortable for one reason: we would not be
in control of this docker image or its distribution. This officially
endorsed Arch Linux image could be modified in any way Microsoft wants.
I'd be really surprised if we did not grant them this right as part of
agreeing to their appstore terms. Sure, we could notice the changes
eventually and pull back our official endorsement, but would they have
to stop using our trademark the moment we told them to? (That's not
abstract paranoia either: things like this happened with sourceforge
and, well, is Microsoft more trustworthy than Dice? Tough question.)

On the other hand, my profound lack of interest for WSL means I truly
have no idea whether this can be useful for others, so I'll vote blank.

Cheers.

-- 
Gaetan


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[arch-dev-public] New devops member - Phillip Smith (fukawi2)

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

Hi,

We have a new member joining the sysadmin/devops team by recommendation
of Allan. I've already rolled out root and git access.

Welcome Phillip, let's break stuff! (slightly) ;)

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public]

Whoa, this is so good to bash that I can't decide where to begin.

Microsoft started noticing Linux (or rather stopped to fight it so
valiantly) when they realized where the money is. On this ground alone I
don't see a reason to help some corporation in putting our logo on their
website so they can brag how they love Linux now, especially when there
are no real gains for us in all of this.

If you want more technical angle, at least few months ago installing
Arch on WSL required patched glibc. I won't maintain such patches
because of something I completely don't care about. Even if it was
solved since, good luck with debugging all possible heisenbugs that can
be encountered due to sloppy implementation of Linux syscalls on
Windows. If the proposal gets through, I'm not going to spend time on
any of such reports at all, making heavy use of EWONTFIX.

I don't use Windows and I don't care about WSL. Having Docker image
makes sense as it can bring some value for people using different
distributions for development or testing purposes alone. That can't be
said about WSL.

Bartłomiej

Re: [arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:14:55 +0100
Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 03:09:16PM -0600, Public mailing list for Arch Linux 
> development wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:00:28 +0100
> > Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public  
> > wrote:
> >   
> > > Hello everybody,
> > > I would like to start a discussion about Windows Subsystem Linux and
> > > Arch linux. You all might know that Microsoft has increased their
> > > participation in open source software a lot since Satya Nadella is CEO
> > > of Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > They even implemented a subsystem on Windows 10 for executing natively
> > > ELF binaries on Windows. This system is based on docker images and some
> > > nice guys from Microsoft have asked Allan and me if Arch Linux would be
> > > interested to participate in this project.
> > > 
> > > The steps for getting into the project are:
> > > 
> > > * Signup in the Microsoft Appstore (we would get a free voucher if we
> > >   want to participate) as Organization (we need the ok from one of our
> > >   trademark holders for this step)
> > > * modifying our docker container a little bit
> > > * pushing it into the microsoft appstore
> > > 
> > > So what do you think? Should we participate in that project?
> > > 
> > > Here are some pros and contras:
> > > 
> > > pro:
> > > - CentOS and Ubuntu are there too
> > > - Would be a nice chance to increase the awareness about Arch Linux
> > > - might get people to change from Windows to Arch Linux (or linux in
> > >   general)
> > > - Nice way to test our docker image in production
> > > - People who are forced to work on windows at work can use Arch
> > >   Linux at work as well
> > > - More bugreports / feedback / forum activity?
> > > 
> > > contras:
> > > - Microsoft is Microsoft (I think I don't need to explain)
> > > - More Newbies?
> > > - Somebody would need to maintain it (I would do it)
> > > - If Arch Linux partnerships with Microsoft could lead into bad image?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would like to hear as much feedback as possible. So don't be shy :)
> > > I want to give feedback to the microsoft guys in round about 1 week.
> > > I guess that should be enough to dicuss this topic.
> > > 
> > > So deadline is 2018-02-7
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- Chris  
> > 
> > This has come up before, my personal preference is that if you want Arch is
> > WSL, go ahead and install Arch in WSL. It's not difficult by just using the
> > bootstrap image. IMO, this would be similar to us supporting Manjaro, 
> > Antergos,
> > or any other automatic, pre-configured and setup system.  
> 
> The difference would be "it's official". There are Arch Linux WSL
> containers at the moment btw:
> 
> https://github.com/alwsl/alwsl
> 
> But it's nothing official.
> 

And that's my point, it would be official; and I don't think the
pre-configured, ready-to-to setup is where Arch is in the marketplace, and
shouldn't be. Arch is a niche distro catering to a specific segment, Windows
converts and people that want things easy is not that segment.


pgpvinPMoxT4T.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 03:09:16PM -0600, Public mailing list for Arch Linux 
development wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:00:28 +0100
> Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public  wrote:
> 
> > Hello everybody,
> > I would like to start a discussion about Windows Subsystem Linux and
> > Arch linux. You all might know that Microsoft has increased their
> > participation in open source software a lot since Satya Nadella is CEO
> > of Microsoft.
> > 
> > They even implemented a subsystem on Windows 10 for executing natively
> > ELF binaries on Windows. This system is based on docker images and some
> > nice guys from Microsoft have asked Allan and me if Arch Linux would be
> > interested to participate in this project.
> > 
> > The steps for getting into the project are:
> > 
> > * Signup in the Microsoft Appstore (we would get a free voucher if we
> >   want to participate) as Organization (we need the ok from one of our
> >   trademark holders for this step)
> > * modifying our docker container a little bit
> > * pushing it into the microsoft appstore
> > 
> > So what do you think? Should we participate in that project?
> > 
> > Here are some pros and contras:
> > 
> > pro:
> > - CentOS and Ubuntu are there too
> > - Would be a nice chance to increase the awareness about Arch Linux
> > - might get people to change from Windows to Arch Linux (or linux in
> >   general)
> > - Nice way to test our docker image in production
> > - People who are forced to work on windows at work can use Arch
> >   Linux at work as well
> > - More bugreports / feedback / forum activity?
> > 
> > contras:
> > - Microsoft is Microsoft (I think I don't need to explain)
> > - More Newbies?
> > - Somebody would need to maintain it (I would do it)
> > - If Arch Linux partnerships with Microsoft could lead into bad image?
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to hear as much feedback as possible. So don't be shy :)
> > I want to give feedback to the microsoft guys in round about 1 week.
> > I guess that should be enough to dicuss this topic.
> > 
> > So deadline is 2018-02-7
> > 
> > 
> > -- Chris
> 
> This has come up before, my personal preference is that if you want Arch is
> WSL, go ahead and install Arch in WSL. It's not difficult by just using the
> bootstrap image. IMO, this would be similar to us supporting Manjaro, 
> Antergos,
> or any other automatic, pre-configured and setup system.

The difference would be "it's official". There are Arch Linux WSL
containers at the moment btw:

https://github.com/alwsl/alwsl

But it's nothing official.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:00:28 +0100
Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Hello everybody,
> I would like to start a discussion about Windows Subsystem Linux and
> Arch linux. You all might know that Microsoft has increased their
> participation in open source software a lot since Satya Nadella is CEO
> of Microsoft.
> 
> They even implemented a subsystem on Windows 10 for executing natively
> ELF binaries on Windows. This system is based on docker images and some
> nice guys from Microsoft have asked Allan and me if Arch Linux would be
> interested to participate in this project.
> 
> The steps for getting into the project are:
> 
> * Signup in the Microsoft Appstore (we would get a free voucher if we
>   want to participate) as Organization (we need the ok from one of our
>   trademark holders for this step)
> * modifying our docker container a little bit
> * pushing it into the microsoft appstore
> 
> So what do you think? Should we participate in that project?
> 
> Here are some pros and contras:
> 
> pro:
> - CentOS and Ubuntu are there too
> - Would be a nice chance to increase the awareness about Arch Linux
> - might get people to change from Windows to Arch Linux (or linux in
>   general)
> - Nice way to test our docker image in production
> - People who are forced to work on windows at work can use Arch
>   Linux at work as well
> - More bugreports / feedback / forum activity?
> 
> contras:
> - Microsoft is Microsoft (I think I don't need to explain)
> - More Newbies?
> - Somebody would need to maintain it (I would do it)
> - If Arch Linux partnerships with Microsoft could lead into bad image?
> 
> 
> I would like to hear as much feedback as possible. So don't be shy :)
> I want to give feedback to the microsoft guys in round about 1 week.
> I guess that should be enough to dicuss this topic.
> 
> So deadline is 2018-02-7
> 
> 
> -- Chris

This has come up before, my personal preference is that if you want Arch is
WSL, go ahead and install Arch in WSL. It's not difficult by just using the
bootstrap image. IMO, this would be similar to us supporting Manjaro, Antergos,
or any other automatic, pre-configured and setup system.


pgpjOBwR9Boz5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[arch-dev-public] Windows Subsystem Linux - Arch Linux as official container?

[Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public]

Hello everybody,
I would like to start a discussion about Windows Subsystem Linux and
Arch linux. You all might know that Microsoft has increased their
participation in open source software a lot since Satya Nadella is CEO
of Microsoft.

They even implemented a subsystem on Windows 10 for executing natively
ELF binaries on Windows. This system is based on docker images and some
nice guys from Microsoft have asked Allan and me if Arch Linux would be
interested to participate in this project.

The steps for getting into the project are:

* Signup in the Microsoft Appstore (we would get a free voucher if we
  want to participate) as Organization (we need the ok from one of our
  trademark holders for this step)
* modifying our docker container a little bit
* pushing it into the microsoft appstore

So what do you think? Should we participate in that project?

Here are some pros and contras:

pro:
- CentOS and Ubuntu are there too
- Would be a nice chance to increase the awareness about Arch Linux
- might get people to change from Windows to Arch Linux (or linux in
  general)
- Nice way to test our docker image in production
- People who are forced to work on windows at work can use Arch
  Linux at work as well
- More bugreports / feedback / forum activity?

contras:
- Microsoft is Microsoft (I think I don't need to explain)
- More Newbies?
- Somebody would need to maintain it (I would do it)
- If Arch Linux partnerships with Microsoft could lead into bad image?


I would like to hear as much feedback as possible. So don't be shy :)
I want to give feedback to the microsoft guys in round about 1 week.
I guess that should be enough to dicuss this topic.

So deadline is 2018-02-7


-- Chris


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public]

On 01/29/2018 03:27 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Two possible strategies:
> a) Gradual migration: It might not work out for some aspects, but
> maybe there is way to prepare the current code to replace svn by git
> and postpoing the actual switch to the very end. It's also a good
> strategy to always have code merged that can and will be "deployed to
> production". Of course this would mean that we have git and svn
> running at the same time at some point.

I'd prefer this, especially as we had a general intention of making
dbscripts VCS-agnostic anyway.

What would be nice, is if we could get things to a state where modifying
a config.local variable and running anthraxx's migration script is all
it takes to start using git. Then in 20 years when we decide we want to
use the next great VCS it will be easier to switch...

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Pierre Schmitz]

Sure, I am not suggesting a rewrite; but when we do it a slightly
different approach could be taken.

Also to explain it further: Whether I or someone else is reviewing PRs
I suggest a way how we could manage such major refactorings. ATM the
diff between gbfs and our origin branch reads as:
 80 files changed, 1578 insertions(+), 3959 deletions(-)
It seems nobody really felt comfortable merging that; which is sad as
a lot of effort went into this.

Two possible strategies:
a) Gradual migration: It might not work out for some aspects, but
maybe there is way to prepare the current code to replace svn by git
and postpoing the actual switch to the very end. It's also a good
strategy to always have code merged that can and will be "deployed to
production". Of course this would mean that we have git and svn
running at the same time at some point.

b) Big bang: Refactor in a branch; keep tests working and plan a
migration in the end. Maybe have PRs from feature to a new develop
branch to make code reviews possible. In the end replace the system,
migrate all data and hope for the best.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public
 wrote:
> On 01/29/2018 02:19 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> Hi all. I feel bad about this. I was not transparent at all about my
>> plans and got lost in a pile of projects which are only slowly
>> progressing. I started improving dbscripts to make it easier to work
>> with; which led to creating a Docker base image to be able to test the
>> latter. Most of my free time then went into a huge refactoring of
>> archlinux.de to finally extract and improve on the pkgstats backend.
>> Now I am drowning in hundreds of arch related emails and "things I
>> should do".
>
> No problem, life gets to all of us! Thanks for getting back to us about
> what happened so we we don't have lingering feelings of guilt like we
> stole it out from under you, though. :)
>
>> I would welcome help on dbscripts a lot. I had a look at those git
>> attempts in the past but in the end they were not easily mergable.
>> Maybe a few suggestions:
>> * Let's use github for Pull Requests
>
> I'm okay with that, TBH I don't think we got a lot of dbscripts email on
> [arch-projects] but I am okay with tracking patches from either location.
>
>> * Make sure PRs are small enough to be reviewable in let's say within an hour
>
> Well, I think patchsets however they come should probably aspire to this. :D
>
>> * New code needs to be tested (Travis build needs to pass)
>> * Code Coverage should be as close to 100% as possible and useful
>
> I will see what I can do, bats looks simpler than I thought at first anyway.
>
>> If we prefer a complete rewrite (e.g. when moving from Bash to e.g.
>> Go) where small pull requests are not possible and we need to start
>> from scratch, I would still strongly recommend my suggestions above;
>> esp. those about testing.
>
> I see no reason to suddenly rewrite everything in a new programming
> language, surely dbscripts isn't *that* bad! :D
>
> I'm not sure we should be replacing parts of our infra with something
> that isn't a scripted language, but that may be a personal opinion
> Moreover, if the goal is to encourage contributions then bash is a
> pretty good language for that.
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
>

Re: [arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public]

On 01/29/2018 02:19 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Hi all. I feel bad about this. I was not transparent at all about my
> plans and got lost in a pile of projects which are only slowly
> progressing. I started improving dbscripts to make it easier to work
> with; which led to creating a Docker base image to be able to test the
> latter. Most of my free time then went into a huge refactoring of
> archlinux.de to finally extract and improve on the pkgstats backend.
> Now I am drowning in hundreds of arch related emails and "things I
> should do".

No problem, life gets to all of us! Thanks for getting back to us about
what happened so we we don't have lingering feelings of guilt like we
stole it out from under you, though. :)

> I would welcome help on dbscripts a lot. I had a look at those git
> attempts in the past but in the end they were not easily mergable.
> Maybe a few suggestions:
> * Let's use github for Pull Requests

I'm okay with that, TBH I don't think we got a lot of dbscripts email on
[arch-projects] but I am okay with tracking patches from either location.

> * Make sure PRs are small enough to be reviewable in let's say within an hour

Well, I think patchsets however they come should probably aspire to this. :D

> * New code needs to be tested (Travis build needs to pass)
> * Code Coverage should be as close to 100% as possible and useful

I will see what I can do, bats looks simpler than I thought at first anyway.

> If we prefer a complete rewrite (e.g. when moving from Bash to e.g.
> Go) where small pull requests are not possible and we need to start
> from scratch, I would still strongly recommend my suggestions above;
> esp. those about testing.

I see no reason to suddenly rewrite everything in a new programming
language, surely dbscripts isn't *that* bad! :D

I'm not sure we should be replacing parts of our infra with something
that isn't a scripted language, but that may be a personal opinion
Moreover, if the goal is to encourage contributions then bash is a
pretty good language for that.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Arch Linux Docker / Vagrant: Current situation

[Pierre Schmitz]

About the ISO bus factor:
* I just recently put the whole process into a simple script to make
it easier for anybody else to build ISOs. Unfortunately at least the
signing process requires some manual work. See
https://github.com/pierres/archiso-manager

About the official Docker Image:
* The docker image archlinux/base is pretty young and I did some
significant changes to its content lately. I am pretty happy with the
result right now but some more field testing shouldn't hurt. On my
virtual todo list is also figuring out whether we could reuse the
created archlinux.tar for other containers as well
* I did not look into the details of how we exactly need to proceed
with making an "official" image. A few pull requests or some kind of
setp-by-step plan (wiki or github) would help.

I am glad the interest in Arch within Docker and other containers is increasing.

Greetings,

Pierre

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via
arch-dev-public  wrote:
>> > The official images projects info is on [1] and [2] if you want to read
>> > more in-depth/updated information. I'll summarize here though:
>> >
>> > 1) A TU/Arch Linux "affiliate" submits a PR to the official images
>> > repository, which basically contains the following:
>> > 1. A tag name/image name
>> > 2. A sha256/ref of a commit/tag containig the image's information 
>> > on
>> > *another* repository (in this case, our official dockerr image 
>> > repo)
>> > 3. Image building instructions.
>>
>> A PR to this repository is also required, not sure if you mentioned it
>> :) [1]
>
> Right, I omitted that one for the sake of brevity.
>
> Thanks!
> -Santiago.

Re: [arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Pierre Schmitz]

Hi all. I feel bad about this. I was not transparent at all about my
plans and got lost in a pile of projects which are only slowly
progressing. I started improving dbscripts to make it easier to work
with; which led to creating a Docker base image to be able to test the
latter. Most of my free time then went into a huge refactoring of
archlinux.de to finally extract and improve on the pkgstats backend.
Now I am drowning in hundreds of arch related emails and "things I
should do".

I would welcome help on dbscripts a lot. I had a look at those git
attempts in the past but in the end they were not easily mergable.
Maybe a few suggestions:
* Let's use github for Pull Requests
* Make sure PRs are small enough to be reviewable in let's say within an hour
* New code needs to be tested (Travis build needs to pass)
* Code Coverage should be as close to 100% as possible and useful

If we prefer a complete rewrite (e.g. when moving from Bash to e.g.
Go) where small pull requests are not possible and we need to start
from scratch, I would still strongly recommend my suggestions above;
esp. those about testing.

Greetings,

Pierre

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public
 wrote:
> [2018-01-29 16:51:54 +0100] Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public:
>> Eli offered to take the lead on getting that done and also later
>> migrating us to git instead of svn. If there are no objections I'll help
>> where necessary and give him access to the dbscripts and devtools repos
>> in two weeks.
>
> That sounds great!
>
> --
> Gaetan

Re: [arch-dev-public] Arch Linux Docker / Vagrant: Current situation

[Santiago Torres-Arias via arch-dev-public]

> > The official images projects info is on [1] and [2] if you want to read
> > more in-depth/updated information. I'll summarize here though:
> > 
> > 1) A TU/Arch Linux "affiliate" submits a PR to the official images
> > repository, which basically contains the following:
> > 1. A tag name/image name
> > 2. A sha256/ref of a commit/tag containig the image's information on
> > *another* repository (in this case, our official dockerr image repo)
> > 3. Image building instructions.
> 
> A PR to this repository is also required, not sure if you mentioned it
> :) [1]

Right, I omitted that one for the sake of brevity.

Thanks!
-Santiago.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Arch Linux Docker / Vagrant: Current situation

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 01/29/18 at 12:31pm, Santiago Torres-Arias via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry I've been quite sick (to the point of barely having energy to look
> at the computer). I'm back on my feet now though :)
> 
> > > Sangy/Santiago[3] was so nice to speak with the docker guys. They said
> > > they would approve our docker image and we could move it to the other
> > > official images[4]. But for this we need to do some changes on our
> > > docker repository on github. (As long I understood sangy correct it
> > > would be just some new branches).
> >
> > Can you actually give more details how it's going to look like?
> >
> 
> The official images projects info is on [1] and [2] if you want to read
> more in-depth/updated information. I'll summarize here though:
> 
> 1) A TU/Arch Linux "affiliate" submits a PR to the official images
> repository, which basically contains the following:
> 1. A tag name/image name
> 2. A sha256/ref of a commit/tag containig the image's information on
> *another* repository (in this case, our official dockerr image repo)
> 3. Image building instructions.

A PR to this repository is also required, not sure if you mentioned it
:) [1]

-- 
Jelle van der Waa

[1] https://github.com/docker-library/docs


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[arch-dev-public] Abandoning nvidia 340xx packages - does anyone want them?

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

I do not have any devices which require me to run nvidia 340xx packages and
I haven't tested them for quite some time now. The most recent
nvidia devices which require 340xx because the regular nvidia package
dropped support for them are now 8-9 years old.

I'm not really sure there is merit in maintaining these so unless anyone
wants them I'll drop them to AUR in two weeks.

Re: [arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public]

[2018-01-29 16:51:54 +0100] Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public:
> Eli offered to take the lead on getting that done and also later
> migrating us to git instead of svn. If there are no objections I'll help
> where necessary and give him access to the dbscripts and devtools repos
> in two weeks.

That sounds great!

-- 
Gaetan


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Anatol Pomozov via arch-dev-public]

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
>> 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, net-telnet, did_you_mean, power_assert, rake, test-unit,
>> xmlrpc, rdoc. Currently we repack these gems and ship it as a part of
>> ruby Arch package.
>>
>> Because gems are bundled with ruby package we have no way to update
>> gems separately. All we can do is to wait until ruby developers update
>> their bundle and release it.
>>
>> The plan is to split these gems from 'ruby' package and install it
>> independently from what ruby developers bundle. Upcoming ruby changes
>> do that - ruby-2.5.0-4 will not include any of the third-party gems
>> mentioned above.
>>
>> Two popular packages - rake and rdoc will get Arch packages (ruby-rake
>> and ruby-rdoc respectively). Other gems need to be installed either
>> from AUR or from gem.
>
>
> Hello Anatol,
> Good decision! I have rebuild asciidoctor with ruby-rdoc as
> makedependency. Shall I move it to testing and you move all packages in
> one turn over to the stable repositories? Will you create a todo for it?

As ruby-rdoc is a makedependency then you don't need to rebuild your
package. rdoc functionality did not change, it just split into
separate package.

>
> Chris

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

[Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public]

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
> 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, net-telnet, did_you_mean, power_assert, rake, test-unit,
> xmlrpc, rdoc. Currently we repack these gems and ship it as a part of
> ruby Arch package.
> 
> Because gems are bundled with ruby package we have no way to update
> gems separately. All we can do is to wait until ruby developers update
> their bundle and release it.
> 
> The plan is to split these gems from 'ruby' package and install it
> independently from what ruby developers bundle. Upcoming ruby changes
> do that - ruby-2.5.0-4 will not include any of the third-party gems
> mentioned above.
> 
> Two popular packages - rake and rdoc will get Arch packages (ruby-rake
> and ruby-rdoc respectively). Other gems need to be installed either
> from AUR or from gem.


Hello Anatol,
Good decision! I have rebuild asciidoctor with ruby-rdoc as
makedependency. Shall I move it to testing and you move all packages in
one turn over to the stable repositories? Will you create a todo for it?

Chris


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Arch Linux Docker / Vagrant: Current situation

[Santiago Torres-Arias via arch-dev-public]

Hi,

Sorry I've been quite sick (to the point of barely having energy to look
at the computer). I'm back on my feet now though :)

> > Sangy/Santiago[3] was so nice to speak with the docker guys. They said
> > they would approve our docker image and we could move it to the other
> > official images[4]. But for this we need to do some changes on our
> > docker repository on github. (As long I understood sangy correct it
> > would be just some new branches).
>
> Can you actually give more details how it's going to look like?
>

The official images projects info is on [1] and [2] if you want to read
more in-depth/updated information. I'll summarize here though:

1) A TU/Arch Linux "affiliate" submits a PR to the official images
repository, which basically contains the following:
1. A tag name/image name
2. A sha256/ref of a commit/tag containig the image's information on
*another* repository (in this case, our official dockerr image repo)
3. Image building instructions.
2) In parallel, we put this information on our repository. At least, a
rootfs and a Dockerfile (as otherdistros do).
3) once the PR is updated, it will fetch our rootfs and Dockerfile (and
other relevant info), build the docker image, and perform some quality
checks on it.
4) The image is published as an "official image" on the dockerhub.

The benefits from this is that industry/paranoid users often don't trust
non-official images to build upon. Also, if I recall correctly, official
images are periodically scanned for vulnerabilities, and (IIRC)
signed with the docker-controlled signing keys, so they can be used with
docker content trust[3].

I think it'd be not too difficult to schedule script the rootfs build
process in the same way we do with boxes right now, publish these as
tags and then update the official dockerfile repositories.

Sorry for the delay.

Cheers!
-Santiago.

[1] https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/
[2] https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/
[3] https://blog.docker.com/2015/08/content-trust-docker-1-8/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[arch-dev-public] New dbscripts maintainer (aka: Making dbscripts great again!)

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

Hi,

Once again, debug repos came up in IRC. AFAIK progress on this is
blocked by Pierre not responding/merging patches. gbs has implemented
quite a lot in dbscripts itself, but we still need someone to come up
with a migration plan, testing and deploying the whole thing.

Eli offered to take the lead on getting that done and also later
migrating us to git instead of svn. If there are no objections I'll help
where necessary and give him access to the dbscripts and devtools repos
in two weeks.

I'm also CC'ing Pierre and gbs so they can jump in if necessary.

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature