Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

cantabile wrote: > On 05/08/2011 08:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: >> Hello, >> can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and >> slim? They are not recommended by anyone& they are to be blame for >> occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start >>

Re: [arch-general] Need for debug - can do i do?

On 2011/5/7 rafael ff1 wrote: > HI there! > > I'm trying to update PCSX2 with some help of its dev team [1], but it > is crashing all the time. According to 'gdb' output, it is somehow > related to lib32-glibc, but it is omitting some information. I was > hoping to be able to activate more verbosi

Re: [arch-general] Need for debug - can do i do?

On 09/05/11 11:17, rafael ff1 wrote: 2011/5/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase: On 07.05.2011 01:18, rafael ff1 wrote: HI there! I'm trying to update PCSX2 with some help of its dev team [1], but it is crashing all the time. According to 'gdb' output, it is somehow related to lib32-glibc, but it is omitting

Re: [arch-general] Need for debug - can do i do?

2011/5/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase : > On 07.05.2011 01:18, rafael ff1 wrote: >> HI there! >> >> I'm trying to update PCSX2 with some help of its dev team [1], but it >> is crashing all the time. According to 'gdb' output, it is somehow >> related to lib32-glibc, but it is omitting some information. I was

[arch-general] makepkg openjd & ca-certificates-java

Hi, I've tried building openjdk, but it has a make dependency upon ca-certificates-java, and ca-certificates-jave also has a make dependency upon openjdk: http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/openjdk6/repos/extra-x86_64/PKGBUILD http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On 05/08/2011 02:21 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: Heiko Baums wrote: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Start_X_at_boot Thats the worst wiki page i've ever seen, on any wiki. That wiki page needs a wiki page methinks. -eyes crossed. C

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:54:15PM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:33:09 +0100 > schrieb Magnus Therning : > > > I don't think so. The word "runlevel" doesn't exist on > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide > > > > It does mention adding display managers to

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On 05/08/2011 08:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: Hello, can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and slim? They are not recommended by anyone& they are to be blame for occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start them from inittab. They dont co

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On 05/08/2011 04:21 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: Heiko Baums wrote: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Start_X_at_boot Thats the worst wiki page i've ever seen, on any wiki. You have not seen mine then!

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Heiko Baums wrote: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Start_X_at_boot Thats the worst wiki page i've ever seen, on any wiki. -- () against html e-mail | usenet & email communication netiquette /\ www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Tom Gundersen wrote: >> >> The specific bug you pointed out is not particular to KDM/GDM/slim, >> but should be fixed for all daemons (proper inheritance of LOCALE), >> and it is on our TODO list. > > Indeed, but i didnt point to this rep

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 8 May 2011 20:29:59 +0200 > schrieb Tom Gundersen : > >> As to the problem of a broken system: This is what single user mode is >> for. No need for a livecd. > > Is this really what single user mode is for? I haven't used it, yet. And >

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Tom Gundersen wrote: > > The specific bug you pointed out is not particular to KDM/GDM/slim, > but should be fixed for all daemons (proper inheritance of LOCALE), > and it is on our TODO list. Indeed, but i didnt point to this report to prove that the rc.d way doesnt work. Its a 10 month old bug r

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 20:29:59 +0200 schrieb Tom Gundersen : > As to the problem of a broken system: This is what single user mode is > for. No need for a livecd. Is this really what single user mode is for? I haven't used it, yet. And how do I switch or boot into single user mode? > From my point

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:28:11 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning : > I think the argument of OP was that the inittab method should be the > *only* method. If both methods are available, which one should be the > default? I'd suggest keeping both methods. Is there a need for a default? I mean the user

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:33:09 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning : > I don't think so. The word "runlevel" doesn't exist on > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide > > It does mention adding display managers to the daemons line. > > I have not read all of the documentation on the wik

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

> > I don't think so. The word "runlevel" doesn't exist on > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide > > It does mention adding display managers to the daemons line. > > I have not read all of the documentation on the wiki though, so I'd be > grateful to be pointed to something I'v

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:20:40PM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:10:59 +0100 > schrieb Magnus Therning : > > > [1] As an Arch user for a couple of years this is the first time I've > > heard using runlevels being suggested. > > Isn't this recommended in the Beginner's Guide or

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Kwpolska wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> How would you make sure e.g. kdm was started before (or after) >> another daemon if you use the runlevel approach? > > If you use the runlevel approach, DMs start after all DAEMONS.

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:15:27PM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:53:49 +0200 > schrieb Tom Gundersen : > > > While I don't have a firm opinion about this, I tend to disagree with > > you. I have always been using the rc.d scripts and find they work > > fine. > > > > We don't r

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:10:59 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning : > [1] As an Arch user for a couple of years this is the first time I've > heard using runlevels being suggested. Isn't this recommended in the Beginner's Guide or somewhere else in the Wiki? Heikol

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 21:08:39 +0300 schrieb jesse jaara : > But if you use runlevel 5 for ?gdm? it will only > try to start the xorg 5 times and if it fails it will fall back to > console, so that you ?can? fix the problem. :D Unfortunately there's no automatic fall back to console (runlevel 3), at

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Am Sun, 8 May 2011 19:53:49 +0200 schrieb Tom Gundersen : > While I don't have a firm opinion about this, I tend to disagree with > you. I have always been using the rc.d scripts and find they work > fine. > > We don't really implement runlevels in Arch, so the half-way approach > of using the ru

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:05:34PM +0200, Kwpolska wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: > > How would you make sure e.g. kdm was started before (or after) > > another daemon if you use the runlevel approach? > > If you use the runlevel approach, DMs start after a

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

> > While I don't have a firm opinion about this, I tend to disagree with > you. I have always been using the rc.d scripts and find they work > fine. > As far as I know the only problem that the daemon method has is the "boot to runlevel S to fix" problem. So if you edit your xorg.conf file improp

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: > How would you make sure e.g. kdm was started before (or after) > another daemon if you use the runlevel approach? If you use the runlevel approach, DMs start after all DAEMONS. This is usually the right behavior. You start DBUS and

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Hello, > can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and > slim? They are not recommended by anyone & they are to be blame for > occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start > them from init

Re: [arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Hello, > can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and > slim? They are not recommended by anyone & they are to be blame for > occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start > them from ini

[arch-general] Display Manager rc.d scripts

Hello, can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and slim? They are not recommended by anyone & they are to be blame for occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start them from inittab. They dont come from upstream & i dont know when they were added,

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Anyone want to maintain acpid?

On 8 May 2011 14:52, Damjan wrote: > >>> For some reason, I am assigned as a maintainer for acpid, but I never > >>> actually touched it. It is out of date and has a number of bugs. Any > takers? > >> > >> I though this had been deprecated for years? Are there still some > >> relevant use cases?

Re: [arch-general] [pacman-dev] pyqt packages confusion

On 08/05/11 14:01, kachelaqa wrote: On Sunday 08 May 2011 02:52:26 kachelaqa wrote: by "pyqt developers", do you mean phil thompson, the author/maintainer of pyqt? Yes. Also see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22391 and http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/pipermail/pyqt/2011-January/thread.html

Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker

On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:43:27 +0200, JM wrote: > I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and > categorized some of them here: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . Maybe we should also consider a more aggressive approach. There are currently more than 600 open bu

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Anyone want to maintain acpid?

>>> For some reason, I am assigned as a maintainer for acpid, but I never >>> actually touched it. It is out of date and has a number of bugs. Any takers? >> >> I though this had been deprecated for years? Are there still some >> relevant use cases? If so, there is a new version in AUR: >>

Re: [arch-general] [pacman-dev] pyqt packages confusion

On Sunday 08 May 2011 02:52:26 kachelaqa wrote: by "pyqt developers", do you mean phil thompson, the author/maintainer of pyqt? Yes. Also see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22391 and http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/pipermail/pyqt/2011-January/thread.html thanks for the links i assume the t

Re: [arch-general] [pacman-dev] pyqt packages confusion

On 8 May 2011 17:59, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > On Sunday 08 May 2011 11:06:14 Kwpolska wrote: >> Are you serious?  Do you really want to get rid of python2?  That's > Why are you trolling guys? I said "a day", not tomorrow. Why the python3 > version has to depend on python2, if we remove python2 in

Re: [arch-general] Drop non-free ?! (Was: Commit in ffmpeg/trunk)

On 8 May 2011 02:43, Ionut Biru wrote: > now i understand the question. It won't be removed. I did it for ffmpeg > because it has a big warning after ./configure > > License: nonfree and unredistributable How are we keeping FAAC/FAAD2 in [extra] then? If we redistribute FAAC/FAAD2 (which are redi

Re: [arch-general] [pacman-dev] pyqt packages confusion

On Sunday 08 May 2011 11:06:14 Kwpolska wrote: > Are you serious? Do you really want to get rid of python2? That's Why are you trolling guys? I said "a day", not tomorrow. Why the python3 version has to depend on python2, if we remove python2 in the year 2030? -- Andrea

Re: [arch-general] [pacman-dev] pyqt packages confusion

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 02:15:51AM +0200, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > I changed this because we are going to remove python2 a day. Are you serious? Do you really want to get rid of python2? That's impossible. Python Wiki[1] says: > The downside of breaking backwards compatibility in 3.x is that > a