On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 22:27, Jelle van der Waa via arch-dev-public
wrote:
>
> The question is if anyone object to checking these small .NVCHECKER
> files into our svn repository. If there are no real objections, I'll
> start implementing this functionality into archweb in two weeks.
I'm not fond
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 10:01, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> This fix for the strip issue is for people to add CFLAGS+="
> -ffat-lto-objects" to their PKGBUILDs if they use LTO and contain a .a
> or .o archive. This affects ~300 packages in our repos (~2.5%). I will
> create a TODO lis
🐍 🎉 Python 3.10 is now in the stable repos! 🐍 🎉
(Some issues are to be expected but hopefully nothing too bad.)
Quick reminder that the Python 3.10 rebuilds have not been merged into
stable yet and care must be taken when updating them. I just had to
correct a package that was moved to stable from testing but was built
against Python 3.10.
I created a todo for the remaining ~150 packages. Just to emphasize
that if a package appears as incomplete on the todo but exists in
staging, that's most likely the first package built with --nocheck in
order to satisfy other packages' checkdeps. Therefore, it still needs
its tests to be fixed pro
For the next few days we'll be doing (semi-automated) rebuilds for Python
3.10. Please avoid adding new Python packages and starting other rebuilds
during this time. *This is a strong suggestion in order to minimize the
pain of this huge rebuild.*
Some PKGBUILDs were modified in /trunk to use the
"Fixed" by repo-adding ipguard to community. I have kept a copy of the
broken files db if anyone wants it, but it seems that
"ipguard-1.04-6/desc" had 1230 NUL bytes instead of 1230 bytes of
package details.
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 13:58, Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> S
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 23:34, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> Options realistically are:
>
> 1) bump the baseline
> 2) provide a second more optimized port.
3) defer this until better tooling is available to implement (2)
Since the RFC is about bumping -march to x86_64-v2, it either gets
I would like to post this in ~48 hours from now. Review and
corrections are welcome. :)
Google has
[announced](https://blog.chromium.org/2021/01/limiting-private-api-availability-in.html)
that they are going to block everything but Chrome from accessing
Google features (like Chrome sync) sta
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 22:53, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public
wrote:
>
> Frankly, I'd love to "stick it to the Man" and bundle the chrome keys. It
> would
> place Google in an interesting position.
Same. :)
> With that said... looking at the mailing list this feels like doing Google a
> fav
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 10:05, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 19:28, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public
> wrote:
> > After reading this thread [0], I think that, if we keep using their keys,
> > or even
> > start using the chrome keys, this might put Arch into muddy lega
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 20:20, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> The new box, as previously mentioned, is roughly twice as fast as dragon
> and has enough memory and storage to handle some load.
Thanks for making it happen, Sven. :)
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 19:28, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> After reading this thread [0], I think that, if we keep using their keys, or
> even
> start using the chrome keys, this might put Arch into muddy legal waters and
> I don't
> think that's a good idea.
It seems others
Jochen Eisinger (Director of Engineering, Chrome) has confirmed that the
killing of our API keys is a done deal. He also does not seem interested
in the slightest bit to explore possible remedies for Chromium packages.
If Chrome's keys are still public in March, I would want to try and use
the
It looks like Sync will only work with official Chrome starting two
months from now. [1] It is understandable to some extend, perhaps to
guard against malicious applications using unofficial (non-Chrome) API
keys and tricking users to log into their account. This argument
doesn't hold much ground i
15 matches
Mail list logo
