Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-15 Thread Mike Cloaked via arch-general
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 6:46 PM Levente Polyak via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 2/12/20 12:58 AM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> > I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of
> > importance (no claim its a good view).
> >
> > So, here's a few that might benefit from an update:
> >Cal Pkg
> > NameVers Updt   Flag   CVers   DateAge Age Pkger
> > ---  -- -- --- --  --- -
>

snip


> > elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> > refind-efi  0.11.3   180723 181119 0.11.4  191112 568 112 TP [1]
> >
> > [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon
> >
> >   Cal Age = days since last update
> >   Pkg Age = days between current and arch release
> >   Cvers = Current version
> >
>
> Hi gene,
>
> thanks for taking time and trying to improve something in our distro,
> however I believe your numbers are, lets say: suboptimal
>
> snip
>


> Actually what does thunderbird even do on this list? I guess because its
> "Age" is 15? Which exactly proves my point above:
> Version 68.5.0, first offered to channel users on February 11, 2020
> which was exactly 1 day ago.
>
> On top this data set is inconsistent, thunderbird was released 200211
> and not as listed 200210 plus refind-efi was not released 191112 but
> 181112 and I didn't even check any other numbers besides those two.
>
> cheers,
> Levente
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/refind/files/0.11.4/
> https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/68.5.0/releasenotes/
>
>
refind-efi has now been released and the source tarball can be obtained
from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/refind/files/0.11.5/refind-src-0.11.5.tar.gz/download

-- 
mike c


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread Levente Polyak via arch-general
On 2/12/20 12:58 AM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of
> importance (no claim its a good view).
> 
> So, here's a few that might benefit from an update:
>Cal Pkg
> NameVers Updt   Flag   CVers   DateAge Age Pkger
> ---  -- -- --- --  --- -
> thunderbird 68.4.2   200126 200211 68.5.0  200210  16  15 LP
> bash5.0.011  191118 200208 5.0.016 200207  85  81 EF
> fail2ban0.10.5   200112 200112 0.11.1  200111  30  -1 FY
> ipset   7.4  191202 200109 7.5 200109  71  38 SL
> samba   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> smbclient   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11  190212 455 384 EF
> biber   1:2.13   191101 191202 2.14191201 102  30 RO
> diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW
> libelf  0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> refind-efi  0.11.3   180723 181119 0.11.4  191112 568 112 TP [1]
> 
> [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon
> 
>   Cal Age = days since last update
>   Pkg Age = days between current and arch release
>   Cvers = Current version
> 

Hi gene,

thanks for taking time and trying to improve something in our distro,
however I believe your numbers are, lets say: suboptimal

You are listing a cal age, which just doesn't say anything as it doesn't
matter how long ago the last update was if the upstream release cycle is
like that.

On top you list Pkg Age as the delta between the latest upstream release
and the last packaging date of the current version in the repos. This
metric again says nothing important.

You are collecting the wrong metrics, what is interesting is "today
minus upstream release date" to get the delta how long a package version
in the repo is not the latest available one. Maybe a second row for how
many days passed since it has been flagged, but the above age is just
nothing useful to take into account.

Actually what does thunderbird even do on this list? I guess because its
"Age" is 15? Which exactly proves my point above:
Version 68.5.0, first offered to channel users on February 11, 2020
which was exactly 1 day ago.

On top this data set is inconsistent, thunderbird was released 200211
and not as listed 200210 plus refind-efi was not released 191112 but
181112 and I didn't even check any other numbers besides those two.

cheers,
Levente

https://sourceforge.net/projects/refind/files/0.11.4/
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/68.5.0/releasenotes/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread nl6720 via arch-general
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 14:13:02 EET Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> On 2/12/20 3:27 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various
> > rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated
> > version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make
> > sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have
> > to rebuild it twice. [1]
> > 
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406
> 
> Thanks for the comments Jelle
> 
> For libelf - very valid - and it's also not much out of date either.
> 
> The version of samba in testing is 4.11.2 and it has been there since
> last November and is now also behind current version (4.11.6).
> 
> Understand folks being busy for sure. In case of samba and refind-efi
> perhaps the packager could use some additional help?
> 
> thanks again!
> 
> gene

The issue with rEFInd is that after it merged zstd support for the Btrfs
driver, it doesn't build with TianoCore EDK2 libs (it works with GNU-EFI
libs). Unfortunately the rEFInd developer cannot reproduce the issue.
See 
https://sourceforge.net/p/refind/discussion/general/thread/0317e2e8/#6c20/f575/cecb


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread Genes Lists via arch-general
On 2/12/20 3:27 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

> Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various
> rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated
> version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make
> sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have
> to rebuild it twice. [1]
> 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406
> 

Thanks for the comments Jelle

For libelf - very valid - and it's also not much out of date either.

The version of samba in testing is 4.11.2 and it has been there since
last November and is now also behind current version (4.11.6).

Understand folks being busy for sure. In case of samba and refind-efi
perhaps the packager could use some additional help?

thanks again!

gene


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread David Runge
Hey Jude,

On 2020-02-12 03:39:23 (-0500), Jude DaShiell wrote:
> tintin-alteraeon can be added to that list since it no longer builds.

this is the second time I've noticed you're bringing up AUR packages on
arch-general.

This mailing list is not about unsupported packages. If you would like
to discuss AUR packages, please do that on aur-general [1], as those
packages are not of concern to Arch Linux as a distribution.

Best,
David

[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/aur-general

-- 
https://sleepmap.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread Jude DaShiell
tintin-alteraeon can be added to that list since it no longer builds.

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:27:45
> From: Jelle van der Waa 
> Reply-To: General Discussion about Arch Linux 
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux 
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages
>
> On 02/11/20 at 06:58pm, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Thank you again for all the great work managing and keeping
> > packages up to date. It is a significant amount of work and continues
> > to make Arch a really standout distro.
> >
> > That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages.
> >
> > I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of
> > importance (no claim its a good view).
> >
> > So, here's a few that might benefit from an update:
> >Cal Pkg
> > NameVers Updt   Flag   CVers   DateAge Age Pkger
> > ---  -- -- --- --  --- -
> > thunderbird 68.4.2   200126 200211 68.5.0  200210  16  15 LP
> > bash5.0.011  191118 200208 5.0.016 200207  85  81 EF
> > fail2ban0.10.5   200112 200112 0.11.1  200111  30  -1 FY
> > ipset   7.4  191202 200109 7.5 200109  71  38 SL
> > samba   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> > smbclient   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> > ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11  190212 455 384 EF
> > biber   1:2.13   191101 191202 2.14191201 102  30 RO
> > diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW
> > libelf  0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> > elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> > refind-efi  0.11.3   180723 181119 0.11.4  191112 568 112 TP [1]
> >
> > [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon
> >
> >   Cal Age = days since last update
> >   Pkg Age = days between current and arch release
> >   Cvers = Current version
> >
> > Packagers
> >  EF  Evangelos Foutras
> >  FY  Felix Yan
> >  SL  S?bastien Luttringer
> >  TP  Tobias Powalowski
> >  AW  Alad Wenter
> >  RO  R?my Oudompheng
> >  LP  Levente Polyak
> >
> > The packages that really standout to me are refind-efi and samba.
> >
> > Hopefully this is useful. Thanks and happy updating!
>
> Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various
> rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated
> version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make
> sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have
> to rebuild it twice. [1]
>
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406
>
>

-- 


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-12 Thread Jelle van der Waa
On 02/11/20 at 06:58pm, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Thank you again for all the great work managing and keeping
> packages up to date. It is a significant amount of work and continues
> to make Arch a really standout distro.
> 
> That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages.
> 
> I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of
> importance (no claim its a good view).
> 
> So, here's a few that might benefit from an update:
>Cal Pkg
> NameVers Updt   Flag   CVers   DateAge Age Pkger
> ---  -- -- --- --  --- -
> thunderbird 68.4.2   200126 200211 68.5.0  200210  16  15 LP
> bash5.0.011  191118 200208 5.0.016 200207  85  81 EF
> fail2ban0.10.5   200112 200112 0.11.1  200111  30  -1 FY
> ipset   7.4  191202 200109 7.5 200109  71  38 SL
> samba   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> smbclient   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
> ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11  190212 455 384 EF
> biber   1:2.13   191101 191202 2.14191201 102  30 RO
> diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW
> libelf  0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
> refind-efi  0.11.3   180723 181119 0.11.4  191112 568 112 TP [1]
> 
> [1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon
> 
>   Cal Age = days since last update
>   Pkg Age = days between current and arch release
>   Cvers = Current version
> 
> Packagers
>  EF  Evangelos Foutras
>  FY  Felix Yan
>  SL  Sébastien Luttringer
>  TP  Tobias Powalowski
>  AW  Alad Wenter
>  RO  Rémy Oudompheng
>  LP  Levente Polyak
> 
> The packages that really standout to me are refind-efi and samba.
> 
> Hopefully this is useful. Thanks and happy updating!

Be aware that packagers might be busy, have limited time or various
rebuilds need to happen. For samba for example there is an updated
version in [testing]. For libelf, a rebuild is required which might make
sense to wait until binutils has support for debuginfod so we don't have
to rebuild it twice. [1]

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65406

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[arch-general] A few out of date packages

2020-02-11 Thread Genes Lists via arch-general
Hi

Thank you again for all the great work managing and keeping
packages up to date. It is a significant amount of work and continues
to make Arch a really standout distro.

That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages.

I've selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of
importance (no claim its a good view).

So, here's a few that might benefit from an update:
   Cal Pkg
NameVers Updt   Flag   CVers   DateAge Age Pkger
---  -- -- --- --  --- -
thunderbird 68.4.2   200126 200211 68.5.0  200210  16  15 LP
bash5.0.011  191118 200208 5.0.016 200207  85  81 EF
fail2ban0.10.5   200112 200112 0.11.1  200111  30  -1 FY
ipset   7.4  191202 200109 7.5 200109  71  38 SL
samba   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
smbclient   4.10.10  191114 191101 4.11.6  200128  89  75 TP
ebtables2.0.10_4 181113 191203 2.0.11  190212 455 384 EF
biber   1:2.13   191101 191202 2.14191201 102  30 RO
diffstat1.62 190106 191130 1.63191129 401 327 AW
libelf  0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
elfutils0.177191118 191128 0.178   191126  85   8 EF
refind-efi  0.11.3   180723 181119 0.11.4  191112 568 112 TP [1]

[1] 0.11.5 looks to be coming out soon

  Cal Age = days since last update
  Pkg Age = days between current and arch release
  Cvers = Current version

Packagers
 EF  Evangelos Foutras
 FY  Felix Yan
 SL  Sébastien Luttringer
 TP  Tobias Powalowski
 AW  Alad Wenter
 RO  Rémy Oudompheng
 LP  Levente Polyak

The packages that really standout to me are refind-efi and samba.

Hopefully this is useful. Thanks and happy updating!

gene


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-22 Thread mike lojkovic via arch-general
The refind update is probably easy to integrate. It's mostly just fixing
one bug with a workaround.

On Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:06 PM Genes Lists via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 5/19/19 6:08 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
>
>
> Firstly, a big thank you for those who updated their packages :)
>
> (By the way, The age column is the number of days between the current
> available release and the version we have in the repo. )
>
> Given the work needed to explore possible use of the lsof fork - i've
> removed it from here as well. Docbook I can't follow the
> versioning/dates clearly but sure does seem like we're a bit behind.
>
> If the primary maintainer(s) are too busy I wonder if someone else could
> update to newer packages?
>
> refind-efi, efibootmgr and autofs in particular could use a refresh -
> right!
>
> thanks again.
>
> gene
>
>
> >
> >   RepoCurrent
> > Package   VersDateVersDateAge
> >   --  --  
>
> > usbutils  0.10201805150.1220190507357
> > refind-efi11.32018072211.420181112113
> > efibootmgr16  2018040917  20180610 62
> > autofs5.1.4   201712195.1.5   20181030315
> > cifs-utils6.8 201803136.9 20190405388
> > Docbook-xml   4.5 5.1 ?
> > gradle5.2.1   201902085.4.1   20190426 77
> >
>


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-22 Thread Genes Lists via arch-general
On 5/19/19 6:08 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:


Firstly, a big thank you for those who updated their packages :)

(By the way, The age column is the number of days between the current
available release and the version we have in the repo. )

Given the work needed to explore possible use of the lsof fork - i've
removed it from here as well. Docbook I can't follow the
versioning/dates clearly but sure does seem like we're a bit behind.

If the primary maintainer(s) are too busy I wonder if someone else could
update to newer packages?

refind-efi, efibootmgr and autofs in particular could use a refresh - right!

thanks again.

gene


> 
>   RepoCurrent 
> Package   VersDateVersDateAge
>   --  --  

> usbutils  0.10201805150.1220190507357
> refind-efi11.32018072211.420181112113
> efibootmgr16  2018040917  20180610 62
> autofs5.1.4   201712195.1.5   20181030315
> cifs-utils6.8 201803136.9 20190405388
> Docbook-xml   4.5 5.1 ?
> gradle5.2.1   201902085.4.1   20190426 77
> 


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-20 Thread Bjoern Franke via arch-general
On 20.05.19 00:08, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> Hi - First a thank you for all the great work managing and keeping
> packages up to date. It can a significant amount of work.
> 
> That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages. I've
> selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of importance
> (no claim its a good view).
> 
> There are also some packages which have been languishing in testing for
> a while (not sure the reason - I chose to ignore those here.).
> 

bird[1] is flagged out of date since 2,5 month, maybe somebody could
bump the version from 2.0.3 to 2.0.4 if seblu has no time.

Kind regards
Bjoern

[1]https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/bird/


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-19 Thread Genes Lists via arch-general
On 5/19/19 6:16 PM, Anatol Pomozov via arch-general wrote:

...

>> lsof4.91201804044.93.2  20190508399
> 
> Where did you find lsof version 4.93.2?>
> The official website does not mention current version. And the mirror
> Arch uses hosts 4.91 only ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/pub/unix/tools/lsof/

That .de site looked pretty dead to me. So I searched around a bit;
And I found this though I'm not 100% convinced this isn't a fork ... but
hoped you'd know the right thing to do :D

https://github.com/lsof-org/lsof/releases

Debian has 4.91 also
Ubunti has 4.91
Fedora rawhide has 4.91

So ... thats why I was a bit confused and figured I'll mention it and
let the experts advise on the best way to proceed.

...

>> alsa-lib1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
>> Alsa-plugins1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
>> Alsa-utils  1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
> 
> alsa packages version 1.1.9 are in [testing] for a week now. They will
> be moved to stable in a few days.
> 

Sorry about that - I meant to exclude that for that exact reason.

> 
> Thank you for the feedback! Really appreciate it.
> 


Re: [arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-19 Thread Anatol Pomozov via arch-general
Hello

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:08 PM Genes Lists via arch-general
 wrote:
>
> Hi - First a thank you for all the great work managing and keeping
> packages up to date. It can a significant amount of work.
>
> That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages. I've
> selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of importance
> (no claim its a good view).
>
> There are also some packages which have been languishing in testing for
> a while (not sure the reason - I chose to ignore those here.).
>
> Here's a few that might benefit from an update:
>
> RepoCurrent
> Package VersDateVersDateAge
> --  --  
> dkms2.5 201711302.7.1   20190512528
> usbutils0.10201805150.1220190507357
> refind-efi  11.32018072211.420181112113
> efibootmgr  16  2018040917  20180610 62
> autofs  5.1.4   201712195.1.5   20181030315
> lsof4.91201804044.93.2  20190508399

Where did you find lsof version 4.93.2?

The official website does not mention current version. And the mirror
Arch uses hosts 4.91 only ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/pub/unix/tools/lsof/

> cifs-utils  6.8 201803136.9 20190405388
> chrony  3.4 201809193.5 20190514237
> Docbook-xml 4.5 5.1 ?
> alsa-lib1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
> Alsa-plugins1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
> Alsa-utils  1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123

alsa packages version 1.1.9 are in [testing] for a week now. They will
be moved to stable in a few days.

> gradle  5.2.1   201902085.4.1   20190426 77
>
>
> Hope this is helpful, thank you!

Thank you for the feedback! Really appreciate it.


[arch-general] A few out of date packages

2019-05-19 Thread Genes Lists via arch-general
Hi - First a thank you for all the great work managing and keeping
packages up to date. It can a significant amount of work.

That said, periodically I check the repos for out of date packages. I've
selected a few to highlight based on age and my own view of importance
(no claim its a good view).

There are also some packages which have been languishing in testing for
a while (not sure the reason - I chose to ignore those here.).

Here's a few that might benefit from an update:

RepoCurrent 
Package VersDateVersDateAge
--  --  
dkms2.5 201711302.7.1   20190512528
usbutils0.10201805150.1220190507357
refind-efi  11.32018072211.420181112113
efibootmgr  16  2018040917  20180610 62
autofs  5.1.4   201712195.1.5   20181030315
lsof4.91201804044.93.2  20190508399
cifs-utils  6.8 201803136.9 20190405388
chrony  3.4 201809193.5 20190514237
Docbook-xml 4.5 5.1 ?
alsa-lib1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
Alsa-plugins1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
Alsa-utils  1.1.8   201901071.1.9   20190510123
gradle  5.2.1   201902085.4.1   20190426 77


Hope this is helpful, thank you!

gene