Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Not a report but related to reports: rm closed report)
(Setting up multiple network interfaces in rc.conf: rm closed report)
Line 102: Line 102:
 
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Pacman_Rosetta&diff=180346&oldid=180010] No idea what {{ic|eix -i}} does, but {{ic|pacman -Qs}} doesn't search '''inside''' packages. Asked for clarification on authors' talk page. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 07:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)
 
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Pacman_Rosetta&diff=180346&oldid=180010] No idea what {{ic|eix -i}} does, but {{ic|pacman -Qs}} doesn't search '''inside''' packages. Asked for clarification on authors' talk page. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 07:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)
 
:Probably should read "within [the subset of] [locally] installed packages." I think this page could use some clean-up -- the section headings within the chart are not visible enough. Commands could be better organized. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 13:21, 28 January 2012 (EST)
 
:Probably should read "within [the subset of] [locally] installed packages." I think this page could use some clean-up -- the section headings within the chart are not visible enough. Commands could be better organized. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 13:21, 28 January 2012 (EST)
 
==<s>Setting up multiple network  interfaces in rc.conf</s>==
 
[[User:AskApache|AskApache]] [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Rc.conf&diff=186344&oldid=186342 did some rc.conf article cleanup] but he removed the mention of {{ic|netcfg}}. I pointed this out on his talk page. I'm not sure if he's done with the rewrite, so I'm not going to jump in and add it myself just yet.
 
 
Even if the user creates all the profiles and adds net-profiles to the daemons, his network won't work, because he needs netcfg package - which is not obvious from the current version of rc.conf article.  -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 05:29, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 
: Thanks for noticing that, I finished the edits to that page and placed a link to netcfg, but you may want to make sure it is obvious for people that they need that package [[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 05:47, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 
:::I'm not sure the [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rc.conf#Multiple_Interface multiple Interface section] should be in rc.conf at all. If anything's missing from [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Netcfg#Configuration netcfg configuration article], it should be added there.
 
::: {{ic|<nowiki>DAEMONS=(@syslog-ng !network net-profiles crond sshd)</nowiki>}} from [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rc.conf#Daemons the daemons section] is important enough to explicitely mention it: I think you have to disable network daemon if you want to use net-profiles, right? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 06:11, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 
::::The way I have always used the [[Rc.conf]] page is when I'm setting up a new install of arch I go through it.  It used to be quite simple to setup multiple interfaces right from rc.conf for several years, but now that netcfg is required it means when I perform a new install I have to view 2 pages to get it.  That's why I like it there.  I do agree that the page shouldn't get cluttered with custom setups, (I left out wireless configs for example).  But OTOH, the [[netcfg]] page is fairly large and complicated for new netcfg users. It actually only takes a minute or 2 to setup multiple interfaces if you have that code to cut-and-paste, otherwise you have to go searching the netcfg page and [[Configuring Network]] page.  I added all the info to rc.conf that I would personally want the next time I am installing a new arch to save time and adhere to the historical use of rc.conf being the only thing needed to get running.  Now that I know I won't be installing again for awhile, it wouldn't affect me to remove that section, but I think it makes a quick setup easier for new-to-arch users, especially since the rc.conf is an archlinux-specific feature.
 
:::: Disabling the network daemon is not neccessary because it's only started explicitly.  The network daemon is essentially the netcfg script built for 1 interface without as many user-definable options. --[[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 18:26, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 
::::: I've read that you should {{ic|1=DAEMONS=(... net-profiles ...) #replace network }} [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Network#Bonding_or_LAG], I've seen [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wicd#Initial_Setup the warning and the daemons array here], [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NetworkManager#Edit_daemons and here] and they all say you should keep just one daemon. If it's not true for netcfg, this should be noted somewhere and [[Rc.conf#Daemons|the daemons section]] should use another daemon to show blacklisting with '!' because it gives the wrong impression (it comes just after the networking section). -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 19:17, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 
:::::: I guess [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Rc.conf&diff=201310&oldid=199344 this is the end]. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 
  
 
==Duplicate content==
 
==Duplicate content==

Revision as of 21:37, 15 May 2012

In this page you can list:

  • Edits that a contributor made to the wiki without a proper explanation (that is what the Summary field is for) and whose validity you lack the knowledge to judge by yourself. In this case, please add a link to the edit in question with a brief explanation why you think it should be investigated. Consider contacting the contributor to ask for an explanation, which is often an effective way to solve these issues. Please report the eventual answer (if any) below the initial report. You can also link to a discussion already started in the talk page of the edited article.
  • Links to discussions started in talk pages requesting to add, delete, or modify some content in the respective articles which you do not have sufficient knowledge to answer definitively by yourself.

Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' reports. Discussions will be deleted 3 days after closing.

See ArchWiki:Spam to report vandalism.

Softphone

Softphone should be marked for deletion in coherence with this edit? (with which I agree) -- Kynikos 11:52, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't see ekiga, linphone and twinkle anywhere on the Common Applications page. I would either leave Softphone or merge it with Common Applications although I'm not sure how common those softphone apps are. -- Karol 17:29, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
You're right, those apps can't be called "common"... The fact is that, to me, pages like that look too much like duplicates of Categories, and I don't like duplications... I don't know, maybe this is more a style problem, but at least we could rename pages like that with "List of ..." ("List of softphopne applications" in this case) like Wikipedia does? Or we could add lists with short descriptions directly in Category pages? -- Kynikos 05:13, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Apart from Skype those apps don't have their own wiki pages in our wiki, so you can't create a category 'Softphone'. Renaming this page to 'List of softphopne applications' looks fine to me but maybe in this case we should tell people to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_software and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software ? Or do we allow to create an Arch-centric (i.e. no Windows-only apps) "copy" of those articles? -- Karol 05:40, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
The problem is where exactly would you put the links to the Wikipedia articles? Maybe we could allow the creation of Categories with a few members but containing lists of external references (with short descriptions)? -- Kynikos 05:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I was thinking about something like this: it not only lists the pages in the category, but also provides some additional info at the top of the page. -- Karol 16:30, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Probably the only problem would be that the search engine doesn't seem to show categories among the results, so the keyword "softphone" would be lost in this case. I would reconsider merging Softphone with Common Applications, and this would also change my mind about its title, List of Applications could be the best solution. -- Kynikos 08:51, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Added a merge request in Softphone, it's enough for closing this old report. -- Kynikos (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal articles in the wiki

Is it better suited for a user page? -- Karol 20:29, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

I think he's not using the article for personal notes, he's sharing his knowledge on the matter. However he should be warned to avoid personal statements, probably the title should be changed, he should seriously evaluate the possibility to merge the content with Small Business Server and above all with Small Business Server (Italiano), which has far more content (and its own category), as he can read and write both languages. And then the current category doesn't exist, headings should start from 2nd level and so on :)
Of course this is my idea, if you bring more reasons why it should go to his user page we can discuss further, probably inviting also the author, so he doesn't possibly work for nothing. -- Kynikos 05:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I like your idea, let's invite him to have a look at the existing articles. -- Karol 06:26, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm writing him later, unless you do it first: whoever contacts him, note it down here. -- Kynikos 06:38, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I've just sent him an email. -- Kynikos 11:39, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
A month later, nothing changed. What do we do? -- Karol 19:37, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
He never replied to my email, at least it needs the Stub template and categorization in Networking, just like Small Business Server. Other that that I don't know atm, it would be a pity to request its deletion, after all it seems to contain useful info, although I haven't checked if it duplicates the content of other articles. -- Kynikos 06:33, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Software RAID and LVM articles

I have essentially completed my revision of the Installing with Software RAID or LVM article. I moved the new draft in my user space to Software RAID and LVM. I still plan on creating RAID and moving RAID/LVM specific information to their respective articles. Next I would request the deletion of the old Installing with Software RAID or LVM article and place a redirect to Software RAID and LVM. Then place a link to the most recent revision of the old article on the Talk Page of the new one. I would love it if other people could compare the two before I request deletion of the old version. ~ Filam 16:12, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

I haven't checked your work in detail, I don't event have much knowledge of RAID, but it looks good at a glance, although I haven't understood why Software_RAID_and_LVM#Update_RAID_configuration is stricken.
Of course redirecting Installing with Software RAID or LVM to one of the new pages and requesting its deletion are conflicting operations, I suggest choosing to redirect, also to make it possible to link to the old revision.
-- Kynikos 06:40, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Ah, the strike was formatting left over from when I was drafting the article. I'll remove it now.
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't clear about the difference between a moved article and a redirect.
~ Filam 10:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I think you can remove the content of the page and leave only the redirect instead of keeping the content because people won't see it anyway - they get redirected to the new article. What about the talk page?
I think redirect pages should have only the redirect, like so. -- Karol 11:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Karol is right, I have removed the content from the redirect page, then I have moved the content of the talk page to the new article's talk page, and then redirected the old talk page to the new one.
Still to do: see if some discussions in Talk:Software RAID and LVM have to be moved to Talk:RAID.
Note for Filam: good job, but next time you should first decide the title of the new page and move the old article to the new page. This, besides automatically redirecting both the article and the talk page, moves also the history of the edits and other possible statistics of the page. Only after doing that you can replace the content of the article with the new draft, and if necessary also split the article.
-- Kynikos 05:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the explanation Kynikos. That certainly makes more sense, and thank you for making those changes.
~ Filam 13:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
@Filam: since it seems you have good knowledge of the article, can you take a look at Talk:Software RAID and LVM and see if something has to be moved to Talk:RAID? And if some discussion are exhausted or outdated you can also just delete them. -- Kynikos 05:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Kynikos, I saw your previous note and I'll certainly get around to it. [the rest of the reply has been moved to Help_talk:Style#Archive discussions?] -- Kynikos]] -- Filam 21:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Great, thanks ;) -- Kynikos 06:06, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
What's the current status? Can we close this? -- Karol (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GNOME edits

Not sure about them. Can anyone have a look if the removed content was really unworthy of our wiki? -- Karol 06:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I really don't know, GNOME would really need a trustworthy GNOME user to do some moderation... -- Kynikos 15:23, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
One thing is sure, having those scripts or not does not make a big difference I guess, maybe if nobody else has better ideas, we could just restore them to drive away any doubts. An alternative is placing them somewhere in GNOME Tips. -- Kynikos 15:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
See Talk:GNOME#Cleanup starting (Was: Is this still a gnome wiki?). -- pointone 15:36, 19 January 2012 (EST)

IPv6

Can someone have a look at some changes starting here? -- Karol 07:56, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

FVWM

These changes to FVWM should be checked. At least the installation section has been messed up. -- Kynikos 18:04, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Courier MTA

'# as root' needs to be converted to '#' at the beginning of commands that should be executed as root e.g. change

# as root
mkdir /etc/authlib/userdb

to

# mkdir /etc/authlib/userdb

Instead of using '#' for comments, those comments should be converted to ordinary wiki text. -- Karol 07:54, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

New templates

Just a heads-up, if you're OK with them [1] [2] , please close the report :-) -- Karol 07:42, 14 December 2011 (EST)

If we start applying them consistently in all the tables, probably adding a proper rule in Help:Style, then I'm ok with them, since coloring cells in tables is not very straightforward even with wiki syntax.
Note their Chinese counterparts have been created too: Template:是 and Template:否. Since those templates' code is very flexible, I suggest replacing them with only 2 templates, Template:Y and Template:N, which would produce "Yes" and "No" by default, but whose first optional argument would allow them to display any other string, including translations, without the need to have localized versions of each template.
Going even a bit further, since some tables use additional colors, we may base the templates' names on their color instead of their meaning, so that we would have Template:G, Template:R, Template:Y, Template:B, and if necessary also Template:P and Template:O (purple and orange, just to complete the secondary colors). These templates should require the first argument, but I think they would be easy to use anyway, for sure much easier than the current | style="color:...." | blabla.
Waiting for opinions. -- Kynikos 09:19, 15 December 2011 (EST)
This template group would also give us an excuse to delete The Status Table Series and related templates, since they have a too narrow field of application and practically just create nested tables in the end, thus giving almost no real advantage. -- Kynikos 13:13, 24 December 2011 (EST)
I support this idea. Similar to the Template:Box COLOUR templates, a series of table cell coloured templates would ensure consistency across articles. -- pointone 16:46, 19 January 2012 (EST)
So good :) However I don't consider this an urgent task, I'm linking this discussion from a new entry among my numerous template ideas in my todo list. Of course if you or someone else want to implement it, just go for it. Just reminding that the implementation should be accompanied by some related style rules.
Also note that among my template-related ideas there's one about the Box COLOR series that seems to go in the opposite direction than the cell color templates, but I think that the colors for the Note, Warning and Tip templates should be reserved for them, and not be usable in other ways.
-- Kynikos 06:47, 20 January 2012 (EST)

System recovery category

This edit adds some information to a category page, and it definitely doesn't belong there. I'm not sure what to do about it though. thestinger 17:06, 6 January 2012 (EST)

I decided to move the information to General Troubleshooting but it needs some work. thestinger 17:11, 6 January 2012 (EST)
Not a bad idea moving it there indeed. What about merging General Troubleshooting and Step By Step Debugging Guide now? And leave the merged article in Category:System administration only? -- Kynikos 07:29, 7 January 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure if we should merge them. I think adding a merge tag to the articles (we should really have the "merge to" and "merge from" templates like Wikipedia) and getting some more input would be the way to go. thestinger 13:08, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Ok, we can wait for more opinions :) Also this very report can be enough at the moment. I'm adding the Merge to/from idea to my todo list among the many others, of course if you want to implement it just go for it. -- Kynikos 09:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I vote for merging both into a Troubleshooting or Debugging article. -- pointone 09:55, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
My preferences: General Troubleshooting > Troubleshooting > Debugging > Step By Step Debugging Guide.
(BTW, for casual readers, the merge to/from idea was discarded in another discussion).
-- Kynikos 08:30, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
Related forum thread. -- Kynikos 11:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

New dependencies for pacman

Some parts of the wiki may need updating, e.g. [3] (the last one in the faq). -- Karol 08:39, 20 January 2012 (EST)

This sounds more like a request, I'd move it under Requests#pacman_4_in_.5Bcore.5D, as a subdiscussion, agreed? -- Kynikos 07:57, 21 January 2012 (EST)
There are actually quite a few dependencies that aren't mentioned, since a broken dependency of pacman would also break pacman (can see them all with pactree -l pacman | sort -u | cut -f 1 -d ' '). The packages that would need to be downloaded and extracted would vary depending on which partial upgrade was done. thestinger 15:19, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Pacman Rosetta

[4] No idea what eix -i does, but pacman -Qs doesn't search inside packages. Asked for clarification on authors' talk page. -- Karol 07:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Probably should read "within [the subset of] [locally] installed packages." I think this page could use some clean-up -- the section headings within the chart are not visible enough. Commands could be better organized. -- pointone 13:21, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Duplicate content

Reminder: same script added in Boot Debugging and Kernel modules, see User_talk:AskApache#Duplicate_content. -- Kynikos 08:33, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Java SE 6

A new page was created with instructions on Java 6, but it could be a lot simpler due to the existence of jre6AUR and jre6-compatAUR (is jre7-compatAUR needed too?). thestinger 00:43, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

The author should probably be contacted, it's his first contribution, maybe he's just inexperienced? Alternatively he may have indeed some reasons not to use the AUR packages?
In any case he edited also Java, so if we delete/modify the page we should take those modifications into account.
-- Kynikos 08:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

btrfs stable?

Some days ago User:Graysky edited btrfs as it had been declared stable: whole history, in particular [5] and [6]; see also [7] and Talk:Btrfs#Troubleshooting is now outdated. Then, User:MajorTom has disputed those changes with [8], and I somewhat agree, as I've not been able to find any official statement about btrfs being declared stable. I'm contacting Graysky. -- Kynikos 17:22, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Guys-I based my statement on the fact the oracle released this in ol6 and back ported it to ol5. Couple that with some emails from Avi miller and there you have it. Graysky 17:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
I know that btrfs' wiki isn't really up to date, but we're clearly colliding with [9], so I think, in order not to confuse Linux users (as our wiki usually ranks quite high in many google searches), you should undo MajorTom's edit and add some reference links to support the points in Btrfs#Recent Developments as he requested; can you do it? Thanks ^^ -- Kynikos 18:45, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Another pacman tip using awk instead of expac

This script doesn't seem to work, maybe expac "%n %v %m" -Q would be better. contacted the author .-- Karol 10:27, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Let's try again: I meant this edit by TuxLyn. -- Karol 10:56, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
I haven't gotten far with this as the author's response confused me instead of providing explanation. Any ideas? Does anyone know what is the purpose of this script? Can I just remove it? -- Karol (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed, closing. -- Karol (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)