On 11.08.2012 11:29, Florian Pritz wrote:
> wvstreams stopped building with gcc 4.7, upstream is dead for ~2 years
> now and gentoo's patches don't seem to fix stack magic checking properly.
> [..]
> Unless someone adopts wvstreams and wvdial I'll drop them to AUR next week.
I've fixed the bug and pushed packages to community, but I will still
drop it (maybe not as fast as I intended) unless someone takes over
since I don't like maintaining dead software.
--
Florian Pritz
08-14-2012, 12:25 AM
Martin Cigorraga
On 13 August 2012 06:29, Martin Cigorraga <msx@archlinux.us> wrote:
Nevermind, solved after reinstalling full MySQL stack.
--
-msx
08-14-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 18 packages missing signoffs
* 9 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.)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (16 total) ==
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (9 total) ==
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (i686), since 2012-07-30
* slmodem-2.9.11-67 (i686), since 2012-07-30
* open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30
* open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (i686), since 2012-07-30
* cdfs-2.6.27-26 (i686), since 2012-07-30
* cdfs-2.6.27-26 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30
* ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (i686), since 2012-07-31
* ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (x86_64), since 2012-07-31
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. tomegun - 2 signoffs
08-14-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 13 fully signed off packages
* 31 packages missing signoffs
* 4 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.)
== All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) ==
* kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (i686), since 2012-07-29
* kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (x86_64), since 2012-07-29
* lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (i686), since 2012-07-30
* lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. tomegun - 2 signoffs
08-14-2012, 05:14 PM
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [CTTE #681687] Resolution of evince mime entry dispute"):
> Also apparently I need to sign my email. My first message has just
> vanished and my second went to debian-devel even though I sent it to
> -devel-announce. I will try again. Sorry again...
Ian Jackson writes ("[CTTE #681687] Resolution of evince mime entry dispute"):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> The question of evince's failure to supply a mime type entry for pdfs
> was referred to the Technical Committee, after the release team
> decided that it was a release critical bug.
But it went to -devel again. listmaster, can you please help ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20522.34665.76579.216883@chiark.greenend.org.uk">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20522.34665.76579.216883@chiark.greenend.org.uk
08-14-2012, 05:49 PM
Ian Jackson
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: [CTTE #681687] Resolution of evince mime entry dispute"):
> Looks like it landed to -devel still. AFAICT the missing ingredient is
> that you need to *also* get rid of In-Reply-To headers (an overly
> paranoid measure to avoid that people by mistake spawn threads on d-d-a,
> by replying to announces posted there).
Aha! That was it, thanks. It's worked now.
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [CTTE #681687] Resolution of evince mime entry dispute [and 1 more messages]"):
> But it went to -devel again. listmaster, can you please help ?
Never mind.
Sorry for all the fuss.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20522.36798.604536.715229@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20522.36798.604536.715229@chiark.greenend.org.uk
08-15-2012, 12:53 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Benfell
> <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
>> Does systemd not use the standard
>> mount program and follow /etc/fstab?
>
> It does. Though it does not use "mount -a", but rather mounts each fs
> separately.
Ah, that ties in nicely with the weird symptoms I'm seeing right now.
For background, you can read my recent forum post here -
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1146498#p1146498 but its
not necessary to this question
Basically as part of troubleshooting the above problem, I attempted to
reformat my /home partition (/dev/sda3) on my desktop to btrfs after
quitting X and stopping the related stuff. I also tried this from a
new boot without ever touching X.
umount /dev/sda3 worked, but mkfs.btrfs didn't, giving me 'still
mounted' errors. When I boot without systemd (initscripts only) then
umounting and mkfs.btrfs works fine.
Related - when I run systemctl -a | grep sda I get (on my systemd
laptop, but got the same on my desktop), trimmed for readability
dev-sda.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
dev-sda1.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
sys-devi...da-sda1.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
sys-devi...da-sda2.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
Do I need to do something additional to get systemd to 'give up'
partitions totally?
08-15-2012, 05:34 AM
Shridhar Daithankar
On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 8:53:37 AM Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> Do I need to do something additional to get systemd to 'give up'
> partitions totally?
tell systemd not to use fsck on btrfs partition? Something like this?(pasted
from my fstab)
On Aug 15, 2012 2:53 AM, "Oon-Ee Ng" <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Benfell
> > <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
> >> Does systemd not use the standard
> >> mount program and follow /etc/fstab?
> >
> > It does. Though it does not use "mount -a", but rather mounts each fs
> > separately.
>
> Ah, that ties in nicely with the weird symptoms I'm seeing right now.
> For background, you can read my recent forum post here -
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1146498#p1146498 but its
> not necessary to this question
>
> Basically as part of troubleshooting the above problem, I attempted to
> reformat my /home partition (/dev/sda3) on my desktop to btrfs after
> quitting X and stopping the related stuff. I also tried this from a
> new boot without ever touching X.
>
> umount /dev/sda3 worked, but mkfs.btrfs didn't, giving me 'still
> mounted' errors. When I boot without systemd (initscripts only) then
> umounting and mkfs.btrfs works fine.
>
> Related - when I run systemctl -a | grep sda I get (on my systemd
> laptop, but got the same on my desktop), trimmed for readability
> dev-sda.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
> dev-sda1.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
> sys-devi...da-sda1.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
> sys-devi...da-sda2.device loaded active plugged ST9250827AS
>
> Do I need to do something additional to get systemd to 'give up'
> partitions totally?
What does findmnt say?
08-15-2012, 06:46 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Shridhar Daithankar
<ghodechhap@ghodechhap.net> wrote:
> tell systemd not to use fsck on btrfs partition? Something like this?(pasted
> from my fstab)
>
> /dev/sda1 /data btrfs noatime,flushoncommit,defaults 0 0
>
>
> Does that help?
Thanks for this, will try it out with systemd (not right now though)
but why would an initial fsck affect unmounting behaviour? To be
clear, I know how to turn off (the final 0) fsck for btrfs, that's not
an issue, just wondering why my ext4 partition can't be repartition
after unmounting.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>
> What does findmnt say?
Right now, nothing much, I've reinstalled and am using initscripts
while testing the bug in the forum post. I will reply here when I've
had time to verify the bug and go back to systemd. Sorry for the
delay, and thanks for all your work on Arch and initscripts/systemd.
