=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 11 new packages in last 24 hours
* 2 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 12 fully signed off packages
* 41 packages missing signoffs
* 3 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (11 total) ==
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 3 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 4 fully signed off packages
* 18 packages missing signoffs
* 3 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (3 total) ==
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) ==
* expac-0.07-1 (i686), since 2011-10-13
* expac-0.07-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-13
* pacman-contrib-4.0.1-1 (any), since 2011-11-25
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. andyrtr - 4 signoffs
2. thomas - 1 signoffs
01-16-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 8 new packages in last 24 hours
* 2 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 14 fully signed off packages
* 43 packages missing signoffs
* 3 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (8 total) ==
== All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) ==
* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (i686), since 2011-10-15
* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-15
* namcap-3.2.1-1 (any), since 2011-10-20
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. andyrtr - 4 signoffs
2. thomas - 1 signoffs
01-16-2012, 08:12 PM
Karol Blazewicz
Is it for real or is it an error?
I know that you should merge pacnew files first, I'm fine with the
move, but something tells me we're going to see many users baffled by
pacman throwing never-before seen errors.
Not that I mind Arch being a less hand-holding distro and actually
requiring common sense ;P
01-16-2012, 08:28 PM
RogutÄ—s Sparnuotos
Karol Blazewicz (2012-01-16 22:12):
> Is it for real or is it an error?
>
> I know that you should merge pacnew files first, I'm fine with the
> move, but something tells me we're going to see many users baffled by
> pacman throwing never-before seen errors.
> Not that I mind Arch being a less hand-holding distro and actually
> requiring common sense ;P
Did you test it re. "never-before seen errors" or did you look at the
.pacnew files?
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/pacman/ has a link "View
Changes", which points to a commit by dreisner:
upgpkg: pacman 4.0.1-4
- disable sig checking by default
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:28:00 +0200
RogutÄ—s Sparnuotos <rogutes@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Karol Blazewicz (2012-01-16 22:12):
> > Is it for real or is it an error?
> >
> > I know that you should merge pacnew files first, I'm fine with the
> > move, but something tells me we're going to see many users baffled by
> > pacman throwing never-before seen errors.
> > Not that I mind Arch being a less hand-holding distro and actually
> > requiring common sense ;P
>
> Did you test it re. "never-before seen errors" or did you look at the
> .pacnew files?
>
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/pacman/ has a link "View
> Changes", which points to a commit by dreisner:
> upgpkg: pacman 4.0.1-4
> - disable sig checking by default
>
> http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/pacman&id=d2e1fdaeb778c08e7be9da54602778a88ab7c792
>
libarchive 3 had to go to [core], so pacman 3.5 had either be recompiled or
removed.
Am 16.01.2012 22:12, schrieb Karol Blazewicz:
> Is it for real or is it an error?
>
> I know that you should merge pacnew files first, I'm fine with the
> move, but something tells me we're going to see many users baffled by
> pacman throwing never-before seen errors.
> Not that I mind Arch being a less hand-holding distro and actually
> requiring common sense ;P
Your question is probably about signatures. We're not entirely there
yet, but as pacman 4 brings lots of other fixes and improvements, it was
a good idea to move it.
If you want to use signed packages (and are okay that databases aren't
signed yet, and not everything is signed), you can follow [1].
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM, RogutÄ—s Sparnuotos
<rogutes@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Did you test it re. "never-before seen errors" or did you look at the
> .pacnew files?
>
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/pacman/ has a link "View
> Changes", which points to a commit by dreisner:
> Â*upgpkg: pacman 4.0.1-4
> Â*- disable sig checking by default
I meant the pacnew files, not disabling sig checking in makepkg.
01-16-2012, 09:31 PM
Mauro Santos
On 16-01-2012 21:52, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
> Your question is probably about signatures. We're not entirely there
> yet, but as pacman 4 brings lots of other fixes and improvements, it was
> a good idea to move it.
I was merging the .pacnew files and some options that were on the "old"
pacman.conf are not present in the "new" one, namely 'ShowSize' and
'ILoveCandy'.
The first one used to be commented in the config file and the second one
used to be in the documentation if I remember correctly. Both are gone
from the pacman.conf man page, 'ILoveCandy' still works though Are
these omissions intentional or are they a bug?
--
Mauro Santos
01-16-2012, 09:33 PM
Karol Blazewicz
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Mauro Santos
<registo.mailling@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16-01-2012 21:52, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>
>> Your question is probably about signatures. We're not entirely there
>> yet, but as pacman 4 brings lots of other fixes and improvements, it was
>> a good idea to move it.
>
> I was merging the .pacnew files and some options that were on the "old"
> pacman.conf are not present in the "new" one, namely 'ShowSize' and
> 'ILoveCandy'.
Are
