Re: [arch-dev-public] Add active Python versions to the repos

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 15:32:22 +
Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 09:13 -0600, Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > Why did you start the discussion if you plan on ignoring other people's
> > opinions anyway?
> > 
> > Doug  
> 
> I am not ignoring Andreas' or Eli's opinion, I understand that they don't want
> these packages in the repos. What I am asking is why they don't want them 
> there?

I don't appreciate you trimming the paragraph I was replying to. I makes my
comments look completely different without context.

The paragraph specifically said that you see no reason to block anything as
long as someone is willing to maintain it. That means that other's opinions
in this disussion don't matter, unless I misunderstood?

Doug

Re: [arch-dev-public] Add active Python versions to the repos

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 15:05:04 +
Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public  wrote:
> As long as there is someone willing to maintain the packages, why would we 
> block
> it? I doesn't really have any effect on the rest of the people. If the person
> start having trouble maintaining them, they can be dropped. It doesn't affect
> you and helps other people.
> 
> Cheers,
> Filipe Laíns

Why did you start the discussion if you plan on ignoring other people's
opinions anyway?

Doug

Re: [arch-dev-public] Orphaned packages from arcanis

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 20:09:12 +0100
Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Yo!
> 
> As a followup from the recent TU removal, I have composed a list of orphaned
> packages from arcanis. Please write back if you adopt anything else I'll drop
> packages into the AUR after some time has passed. As of now there are no 
> package
> resigning that needs to be done.

If you adopt a package, please remember to check the bug tracker and reassign
any open tickets for that package to yourself. I went through and made sure
anything that had a comaintainer was reassigned already.

Doug


pgpiKM0rkYaQI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Add active Python versions to the repos

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 16:59:21 +
Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 16:58 +0100, Andreas Radke via arch-dev-public
> wrote:
> > Am Sat, 21 Nov 2020 14:34:24 +
> > schrieb Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public
> > :
> > 
> >   
> > > Does anyone have any big issue with this? What are your thoughts?
> > > 
> > > [1] https://www.python.org/downloads/
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Filipe Laíns  
> > 
> > -1
> > 
> > Arch is yours. Whoever needs more and older releases on the system -
> > just do it yourself! In the past we said "use abs and AUR - Arch is
> > the base to make it your own".  
> 
> This argument can be used to deny adding any package to the repos. You
> need this library, tool, etc.? Just add it yourself.
> 
> Why are we packaging software that is used by far less people but we
> can't package these Python interpreters which are being actively missed
> by people?
> 
> > I don't want to see users raising bugs that something doesn't work
> > with an older version of python. And I don't want to see these
> > requests
> > pop up every now and then to add even more stuff in different
> > versions.  
> 
> We already have multiple versions of Java, Ruby, Javascript, etc. hell,
> even Python. I don't think having people opening bugs because they are
> deliberately using an older version of Python is a big problem. It
> hasn't been for any of the other languages, I don't think it will be
> here.
> I think this is an hypothetical that doesn't really materialize into
> reality.
> 
> > It's sad enough we still have python2 and gtk2 around. To have gcc9
> > around and other duplicates is not what I want to see growing in
> > Arch.   
> 
> What you call sad I call a bad UX. Why do we need to force users to
> compile active releases of the Python interpreters themselves, which
> can take a long time if they are building with optimization, or to
> resort to pre-built repos with much lower security standards than us,
> when there are people willing to maintain them?
> 
> I can't understand how it's sad to help out users by not forcing them
> to resort the sort of things I mentioned above, as long as we are not
> struggling to do so. I like helping people, that's why I am a packager,
> that is the opposite of sad for me, so I really can't understand this.

It's more concerning to me that you can't understand this argument than
anything else so far. Arch keeps old things around in the repos when they're
required by other things in the repos. It's a necessary evil, not something to
be actively encouraged.

> > I don't want to see our distribution transformed into another Debian.  
> 
> That is not what is happening.
> 
> Cheers,
> Filipe Laíns



pgpjkdiILK286.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] News draft: Bug wrangling day

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:31:23 +0200
Frederik Schwan via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Hi people,
> 
> given the large amount of open bugs, I'd like to invite all users to help out 
> with an official announcement.
> 
> 
> >  
> 
> Kill Arch Bugs: Help us on the 13th of September!
> 
> 
> We would like to hold a bug wrangling day on the 13th of September to reduce 
> the large amount of open tickets.
> If you cannot take part in the bug wrangling day, then feel free to help us 
> any time before that event.
> 
> How?
> 
> Please review all bugs that were reported by you and check if they are still
> valid. Please request a task closure on the bug tracker if the task may be 
> closed.
> 
> Otherwise please provide further information so that we can continue to work 
> on the bug.
> We cannot fix bugs without your feedback.
> 
> 
> Questions?
> 
> Join us at #archlinux-bugs channel on irc.freenode.net during 13th of 
> September.
> As we life in different timezones not all devs and bug wranglers will be 
> available at
> the same time, but feel free to report your issues to any dev available.

I won't be available at all on the 13th.


> Also please check your mailboxes that may contain notifications about 
> comments made on your tickets
> 
> <
> 
> 
> Parts of this news are derived from this post: 
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=31568
> 
> Cheers,
> Frederik
> 



pgpa2BVO6mQUT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Mkinitcpio replacement with Dracut

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Tue, 21 May 2019 13:51:43 -0300
Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Em maio 21, 2019 2:24 Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public escreveu:
> > 
> > Without looking at dracut yet, I have a few questions:
> > - Is there a description how to move from mkinitcpio to dracut?  
> 
> No, not yet. But it is as simple as running dracut -H -f 
> /boot/initramfs-linux.img, for
> trying it out. I'll work later this week on a wiki page, but the good thing 
> is, it has
> plenty documentation available.
> 
> 
> > - Does dracut support what mkinitcpio has? all the hooks and stuff  
> 
> It does support even more than we do currently. It can boot from pretty much 
> anything,
> including NFS and NBD.
> 
> > - did you already add pacman hooks for dracut as we need for mkinitcpio,
> > or is that not needed?
> >  
> 
> We will certainly need a hook to trigger the rebuild, but I didn't add it as 
> a part of
> the dracut package yet, because I need to write them, but I want first to see 
> if dracut
> is a good fit for Arch or not.

A hook would be good, but might need to be in the kernel packages like the
current hooks are. Kernel versions are hard-coded in the hook. It would also
be nice to rename the initramfs so that we've got both available, I just put
-dracut in it for testing this.

> 
> > When I have some time to spare I certainly will try it out.
> >   
> 
> Please do. And make sure you have your fallback image working when you do.
> 
> Regards,
> Giancarlo Razzolini

Re: [arch-dev-public] Proposal: minimal base system

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:09:32 +0900
Jiachen YANG via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Currently the "base" group serves at least 2 purposes for us:
...
> 2. A base chroot environment for devtools/makechrootpkg to prepare
> packaging.
...
> Currently, devtools/makechrootpkg will install "base" group for the
> packaging environment, which essentially makes "base" group as implicit
> depends for all packages (and "base-devel" as implicit makedepends).

This is simply not true. devtools/makechrootpkg installs base-devel only, not
base, so it's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Doug


pgpQhPDVAipkR.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Removing 'orphan' python2 modules

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:48:07 +0200
j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:

> Jelle van der Waa schreef op 2018-06-27 21:35:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > Our repository contains a lot of python2 modules which are required by
> > any package in the repository. I'd like to propose to remove these
> > modules pre-emptively since they serve no purpose and python2 is dead.
> > We should strive to be a modern distro, so promoting Python3 should be 
> > a
> > big part of it :)
> > 
> > 
> > Please reply if you have objections.
> > 
> > A list of modules / programs can be obtained as following or viewed 
> > here
> > [1]
> > 
> > $ pacman -Sqs python2 > list
> > $ expac -S '%n %N' -l ' ' - < list | awk NF==1
> > 
> > [1] http://pkgbuild.com/~jelle/python2_modules.txt  
> 
> Python 2.7 is supported until 2020, that's 18 months from now. I agree 
> that we should limit the orphaned python2 modules as much as possible, 
> but please don't kill the ones that are built from a split package that 
> also builds python3 packages. This would mean removing the python2 parts 
> from the PKGBUILD, moving the python2 part to AUR and create a lot of 
> duplicated effort when updating these packages.

I would say those are exactly what should be removed. Its a whole lot of
packages in the repos that have no reason to be there.

Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] / [extra] cleanup

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:12:18 +0800
Felix Yan via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> On 06/05/2018 04:01 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 02/06/18 17:06, Jelle van der Waa wrote:  
> >> Looking at the packages in the BUILDINFO rebuild list, I've found some
> >> packages which are so old that they might not longer suit [core] or our
> >> repos in general. So I'd like to propose that we either move or remove
> >> the following packages:
> >>
> >> *Remove*
> >> - pcmciautils - Ancient technology  
> > 
> > Felix moved it to [extra], not sure why? So removed it from [core]  
> 
> Was a mistake when trying to rebuild for the BUILDINFO todo. Sorry for that.
> 

And two and a half weeks later and it's still there?

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 02:52:16 +0100 (CET)
Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> > Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public  hat am 14. 
> > Februar 2018 um 01:48 geschrieben:
> > 
> > 
> > On 02/13/2018 06:56 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:  
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Eli and I disagree about how dependency conflicts should be handled when
> > > packaging.  This was prompted by the libxfont dependency conflict arising
> > > from recent xorgproto changes [1].
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57495  
> > 
> > Is there a reason you took a private disagreement to the public mailing
> > lists:
> >   
> So, uh, how often does this happen that we need to make a big fuss on the 
> matter? The last manual intervention was nearly a year ago with 
> ca-certificates-utils. If anything we should argue why there was no news post 
> on archlinux.org
> 
> Alad

A news post for something completely routine? Has Arch become so boring that
people don't know how to deal with the simplest conflict?

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:56:33 +0100
Baptiste Jonglez  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Eli and I disagree about how dependency conflicts should be handled when
> packaging.  This was prompted by the libxfont dependency conflict arising
> from recent xorgproto changes [1].
> 
> My position in this case: it would be really easy to avoid this conflict,
> by adding libxfont to the Replaces() array of xorgproto.  This would cause
> libxfont to be automatically uninstalled upon sysupgrade, which is nice
> because it's an obsolete and now-useless package.
> 

I saw the direct emails before this one, so I'll just quote part of my reply
here:

Replaces is for when packages are renamed, nothing more. That is NOT in any way
what happened here, libxfont and libxfont2 are different libraries. Should GTK3
replace GTK2? Qt5 replace Qt4?


pgpa82i2zPx5q.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:09:26 +0100
Thomas Bächler via arch-dev-public  wrote:

> Right now, I only have experience with the version before the fall
> creators update, and that has issues:
> 
> * As others mentioned, some glibc functionality relies on certain
> clone() flags that WSL did/does not support.
> * pacman needs an LD_PRELOAD hack since it insists on using chroot even
> without a --root option, but WSL does/did not have chroot.

Both are fixed, chroot is supported in the Fall Creators update and the glibc
issues have been fixed since.

The addition of chroot makes it simple to install Arch. Just let it setup
Ubuntu, then use the bootstrap image to install Arch. Copy a couple of dirs in
Windows and you're done.


pgpw8C3gAUtQF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:14:55 +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?

[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