On 8/8/18 4:11 PM, Tharre via arch-general wrote:
> On 08/08, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:
>> There is no tradition in Arch to self-host package sources as Debian does
>> unless upstream has
>> completely broken release process. This can impose security risks on Arch as
>> we now have to
>>
On 08/08, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:
> There is no tradition in Arch to self-host package sources as Debian does
> unless upstream has
> completely broken release process. This can impose security risks on Arch as
> we now have to
> trust their github infra rather than kernel.org (we all
> From: Jonathon Fernyhough
> Sent: Wed Aug 08 18:09:30 CEST 2018
> To:
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Kernel source URL change
>
>
> On 08/08/18 12:43, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:
> > This can impose security risks on Arch as we now have to
> > tru
On 08/08/18 12:43, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:
> This can impose security risks on Arch as we now have to
> trust their github infra rather than kernel.org (we all know what happened to
> gentoo recently)
Just to provide some perspective, kernel.org itself had a major issue a
few years
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:43:08 +0200 (CEST), Geo Kozey wrote:
>The author of original post [snip] asked few questions which weren't
>answered.
Hi,
the OP did ask how to build a custom kernel based on the official linux
package [1]. Perhaps somebody with unobjectionable knowledge could
correct
On August 8, 2018 4:54 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general
wrote:
> Em agosto 7, 2018 23:31 W B via arch-general escreveu:
>
> > It isn't an order.
> >
> > > Can you tell us why this change was required, please?
>
> Have you read the original post to the list? Specially this [0]?
>
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:55:55 -0400
Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Because heftig decided it was easier *for him* to do it this way.
>
> Because downloading 100 MB for every single patchlevel release quickly
> builds up to just as much as a full git clone.
>
> Can you tell us why you
On 08/07/2018 10:31 PM, W B via arch-general wrote:
> It isn't an order.
>
> Can you tell us why this change was required, please?
Because heftig decided it was easier *for him* to do it this way.
Because downloading 100 MB for every single patchlevel release quickly
builds up to just as much
Em agosto 7, 2018 23:31 W B via arch-general escreveu:
It isn't an order.
Can you tell us why this change was required, please?
Have you read the original post to the list? Specially this [0]?
Those tar files you just linked are not signed by Linus anymore, they are signed
instead by Greg
It isn't an order.
Can you tell us why this change was required, please?
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 8, 2018 3:11 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
wrote:
> On 08/07/2018 07:31 PM, W B via arch-general wrote:
>
> > Now we know that the change is a solution in search of a
On 08/07/2018 07:31 PM, W B via arch-general wrote:
> Now we know that the change is a solution in search of a problem.
>
> The fact that they won't sign the patch tarballs anymore isn't a problem.
>
> All that heftig must do, is to make it download the complete tarball and its
> signature.
>
Now we know that the change is a solution in search of a problem.
The fact that they won't sign the patch tarballs anymore isn't a problem.
All that heftig must do, is to make it download the complete tarball and its
signature.
Here you go:
Also now to build the package locally you download the whole repository
(~2 Gb compared to the ~110 Mb previously).
Oh...
Cloning into bare repository '/tmp/4.17-arch/archlinux-linux'...
remote: Counting objects: 6135977, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1099/1099), done.
remote:
This looks like a solution in search of a problem.
heftig, please tell us why the change was required.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, at 09:11, Joan Aymà via arch-general wrote:
> The size problem can be solved using hollow clone.
Not in a well-formed PKGBUILD. There's ample discussion on this topic
available. Of course you're welcome to hack together whatever you want.
The size problem can be solved using hollow clone.
Regards.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 07:28 Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general, <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 01/08/18, Andrey Vihrov via arch-general wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recently the way kernel sources are retrieved was changed in the
On 01/08/18, Andrey Vihrov via arch-general wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently the way kernel sources are retrieved was changed in the linux
> package [1]. Now the sources are fetched from
> https://github.com/archlinux/linux.
>
> I see a few problems with this:
>
> - Previously the list of applied
On 08/01, Andrey Vihrov via arch-general wrote:
> - Previously the list of applied patches was very transparent. You could
> immediately see that the kernel and kernel patch tarballs come from
> kernel.org, and view individual extra patches. Now the code comes from a
> non-kernel source, and
Hi,
Recently the way kernel sources are retrieved was changed in the linux
package [1]. Now the sources are fetched from
https://github.com/archlinux/linux.
I see a few problems with this:
- Previously the list of applied patches was very transparent. You could
immediately see that the kernel
19 matches
Mail list logo
