For those who are not subscribed to the commits ML, here's the latest
batch of packages that were removed from extra in the current cleanup:

Completely removed:
edb

Moved to community:
divx4linux
freetype1
gpsdrive

Moved to unsupported:
bidwatcher
blam
cccp
cplay
cvsfs
dcd
epic4
galeon
gentoo
gnet1
grcm
ircii-pana
lam
lib3ds
libast
libtrash
madplay
prozilla
ptabtools
samplicator
chgres
xforms
libping
dump
lineak_defaultplugin
lineak_xosdplugin
lineakd
lprng
castle-combat
service-discovery-applet





--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger wrote:
> For those who are not subscribed to the commits ML, here's the latest
> batch of packages that were removed from extra in the current cleanup:
>
> Completely removed:
> edb
>
> Moved to community:
> divx4linux
> freetype1
> gpsdrive
>
> Moved to unsupported:
> bidwatcher
> blam
> cccp
> cplay
> cvsfs
> dcd
> epic4
> galeon
> gentoo
> gnet1
> grcm
> ircii-pana
> lam
> lib3ds
> libast
> libtrash
> madplay
> prozilla
> ptabtools
> samplicator
> chgres
> xforms
> libping
> dump

Why is xfsdump (to dump xfs) in core but dump (for ext2/3) in
unsupported?

It seems we should support dump for filesystems we support. I'll
take dump into core if desired. Or we could move xfsdump and dump
both into extra.

- P

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

On Nov 27, 2007 7:33 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> Why is xfsdump (to dump xfs) in core but dump (for ext2/3) in
> unsupported?

Because no one brought this point up earlier 8)

> It seems we should support dump for filesystems we support. I'll
> take dump into core if desired. Or we could move xfsdump and dump
> both into extra.

I agree we should stay consistent, but how important are these apps? I
know I've never used or heard of anyone using them. I'd guess they're
recovery type tools, but we have a lot of those in extra already.
Would anyone have a problem with both of them being in extra?

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 7:33 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
>> Why is xfsdump (to dump xfs) in core but dump (for ext2/3) in
>> unsupported?
>
> Because no one brought this point up earlier 8)
>
>> It seems we should support dump for filesystems we support. I'll
>> take dump into core if desired. Or we could move xfsdump and dump
>> both into extra.
>
> I agree we should stay consistent, but how important are these apps? I
> know I've never used or heard of anyone using them. I'd guess they're
> recovery type tools, but we have a lot of those in extra already.
> Would anyone have a problem with both of them being in extra?

I think having both in extra would be fine. If someone moves
xfsdump, I'll bring dump up from unsupported to extra and maintain it.

- P

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

On Nov 27, 2007 2:33 PM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
>
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 2007 7:33 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> >> It seems we should support dump for filesystems we support. I'll
> >> take dump into core if desired. Or we could move xfsdump and dump
> >> both into extra.
> >
> > I agree we should stay consistent, but how important are these apps? I
> > know I've never used or heard of anyone using them. I'd guess they're
> > recovery type tools, but we have a lot of those in extra already.
> > Would anyone have a problem with both of them being in extra?
>
> I think having both in extra would be fine. If someone moves
> xfsdump, I'll bring dump up from unsupported to extra and maintain it.

Done, moved xfsdump to extra.

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

On Nov 27, 2007 3:04 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 2:33 PM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 2007 7:33 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> > >> It seems we should support dump for filesystems we support. I'll
> > >> take dump into core if desired. Or we could move xfsdump and dump
> > >> both into extra.
> > >
> > > I agree we should stay consistent, but how important are these apps? I
> > > know I've never used or heard of anyone using them. I'd guess they're
> > > recovery type tools, but we have a lot of those in extra already.
> > > Would anyone have a problem with both of them being in extra?
> >
> > I think having both in extra would be fine. If someone moves
> > xfsdump, I'll bring dump up from unsupported to extra and maintain it.
>
> Done, moved xfsdump to extra.

xfsdump needs a rebuild to remove its groups entry, since it is no
longer in base.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

On Nov 28, 2007 12:24 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 3:04 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Done, moved xfsdump to extra.
>
> xfsdump needs a rebuild to remove its groups entry, since it is no
> longer in base.

Done. Good catch

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public