On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:10:22PM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hey guys keep cool, > following packages i would like to see in core: > > pending signoffs and move to base: > pmciautils, just a small udev.rules fix waiting for signoff. > cryptsetup -->waiting on response > > klibc > klibc-extras > klibc-module-init-tools > --> seems to be solid and movable, would you move in Thomas? > > vi > --> seems to be signed off, could Eric or Tobias this move in or should i move > it? > > klibc-udev? > the one from testing works fine, we can use this 116-3 > instead of 118 which is not buildable here. > --> move in klibc-udev-116-3, would you move in Thomas? > > initscripts? > bump to 2008.03 with the last changes from git > aaron and roman will add the final changes and then release a new version. > > mkinitcpio? > do we need a new version to get init= syntax back? > if yes we could fix this bug also: > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9433 > --> Aaron said doesn't seem to be an issue > problem because of missing /dev/mem? > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9813 > Thomas is this a showstopper? > > pending signoffs and move to support: > rp-pppoe --> waiting for response > tiacx --> will go to core now > tiacx-firmware --> will go to core now > > wpasupplicant? > Thomas movable? > > fuse? > Thomas is there an issue atm? > movable? > > kbd? > Roman wanted to add some changes and additions to it, > this is not critical we could live with the old version too. > Roman just tell me, if we should wait for your work or not. > > madwifi/madwifi-utils? > I don't have the hardware and cannot test it at all. > I am so undecided, Andy has issues with both the one in core and the one from > testing. > Varun reported this bug on his macbook: > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9802 > Others have no issues and gave signoff on general ml. > We could move in the so called stable version or leave it with the snapshot we > already have in core.(I hate buggy modules:( ) > > delayed package moves due to rebuilds and issues: > gcc > build-toolchain > libtool > perl > > any other comments? > > greetings > tpowa May i add xorg-server to the above packages too? I know its not part of core, let alone base, but its a very important package in extra. Current xorg-server in testing comes with HAL enabled. Reference: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9563 Is that gonna be the default now? Users probably havent reported back on this, but many had problems with it. On the other hand others didnt. Its already a month in testing, but no decision has been made up yet. Should this be reviewed later? What do devs think about this change? Greg
