Re: Reporting bugs for unofficially support ports (powerpc in particular)?
Michael R. Head wrote: I've been trying to report a bug about an app on the powerpc architecture ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gpar2/+bug/146606 ). It's been marked invalid because it occurs on powerpc, even after assigning it to the PowerPC team. I'd still like to try and get the bug fixed, since it renders the package useless on ppc (gpar2 always crashes when it runs). The bug should not have been closed just because it is for PPC. I've re-opened it. What's the right way to file a bug against a package in an unofficially supported architecture? Filling and assigning to the PPC team, as you have done, is right. Henrik -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Reordering this mail to put the important topic on top. On 9/28/07, Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC, in sleep-to-disk mode you can even pull the power plug without enforcing booting. Yep, sleep-to-disk is the best mode if you care about your environment, but if you want to suggest that we all use standby/sleep-to-disk to get around fsck checks then that's silly because it doesn't really solve the actual problem and it is no solution that works automatically for everyone. Also, both modes aren't stable enough, at least on laptops (but it would be great if sleep-to-disk were the default because it's much more comfortable for the end-user). If the HDD needs to be checked, regularly, then this needs to be done in background instead of at boot time. If it doesn't really need to be checked very frequently or at all then the check needs to be turned off, by default. What do the Ubuntu developers say (sorry, I don't know who of you is a dev)? Will this discussion lead to anything or are we discussing just for fun? Am 28.09.2007 um 00:40 schrieb Caroline Ford: We are strongly being advised NOT to leave things on standby here as it's bad for the environment. I'm pretty sure it takes less energy to have a modern computer in standby for a week or two than to boot the machine and to restore all the applications running (think about 30 documents open on my average desktop). Not to mention about an hour of work to do the latter. That's plain wrong. Permanent standby (e.g., 20h/day) needs many times more energy than booting your computer and opening your documents. You can easily calculate for yourself: 6W for standby when monitor turned off, 180W under medium load. FYI, in Germany, for example, we have multiple power plants running solely to keep electronic devices in standby mode! Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 27/09/2007, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output into a pseudo-window on the boot screen (so that it doesn't look like the whole thing crashed to command line) might be nice, e.g.: u b u n t u [X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ] |checking files | |=== 21%| CK If the default behaviour of fsck can't/won't be changed (and even if it is), I'd like to see this sort of thing implemented. It would be good to give the user an option of cancelling the check (press any key to cancel sort of thing), and then either prompt again at next bootup, or give the user a way of further delaying the check (tune2fs ?). Martin -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 30/09/2007, Martin Peeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/09/2007, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output into a pseudo-window on the boot screen (so that it doesn't look like the whole thing crashed to command line) might be nice, e.g.: This is dealt with in this spec: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/usplash-polish https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UsplashPolishSpec Aaron -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
recovery CD?
Hi, I made a fresh install on a laptop I am going to give to a dummy (on computer) person. I would like to know if there is some way to create a recovery CD of the installation. I installed some restricted drivers and that person would be unable to do so. Especially after a disaster. I would like a DVD or CD that the person will boot on and suggest a format+the same installation as the one I made (same modules loaded, same restricted drivers loaded, same initial username/pass, same configuration of compiz...). If you have any hint... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Waldemar Kornewald wrote: Are there any alternatives? Here are two examples: one alternative is fsck at shut down. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck sam tygier -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:46 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: I once reported a bug about this, but Justin Wray suggested that I discuss this on a mailing list, first. Curious. I filed a bug about disabling periodic fscks (as most other operating system like Windows 95 and above along with OSX don't do them) over on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/partman-ext3/+bug/3581 back in October 2005. I am starting to wonder if this was the correct thing to do... -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Sitsofe Wheeler wrote the following on 30.09.2007 19:14 On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:46 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: I once reported a bug about this, but Justin Wray suggested that I discuss this on a mailing list, first. Curious. I filed a bug about disabling periodic fscks (as most other operating system like Windows 95 and above along with OSX don't do them) over on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/partman-ext3/+bug/3581 back in October 2005. I am starting to wonder if this was the correct thing to do... umount the partition and *then* run: $ sudo tune2fs -c 0 -i 1m /dev/hdXY that will reduce fsck period to once a month, regarless of bootcount. But do that on your on. Distribution wide i can´t think off any good reason to disable fsck at all. -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 9/30/07, Thilo Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: umount the partition and *then* run: $ sudo tune2fs -c 0 -i 1m /dev/hdXY that will reduce fsck period to once a month, regarless of bootcount. But do that on your on. Distribution wide i can´t think off any good reason to disable fsck at all. If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default. As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck and that's incredibly annoying. From my own experience, the average person will react very negatively to fsck increasing their boot time by 10-40min, especially if XPVista (how about other Linux distros or OS X?) don't do this annoying check. Seriously, why should we accept being disturbed by fsck? It's not like we couldn't do anything about it. There are two solutions that work for everyone: turn fsck off by default or make it work in the background. Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Waldemar Kornewald wrote: On 9/30/07, Thilo Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: umount the partition and *then* run: $ sudo tune2fs -c 0 -i 1m /dev/hdXY that will reduce fsck period to once a month, regarless of bootcount. But do that on your on. Distribution wide i can´t think off any good reason to disable fsck at all. If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default. As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck and that's incredibly annoying. From my own experience, the average person will react very negatively to fsck increasing their boot time by 10-40min, especially if XPVista (how about other Linux distros or OS X?) don't do this annoying check. Seriously, why should we accept being disturbed by fsck? It's not like we couldn't do anything about it. There are two solutions that work for everyone: turn fsck off by default or make it work in the background. Regards, Waldemar Kornewald How would it work in the background after your drives are mounted? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHACBHKlAIzV4ebxoRApTjAJ4z5tXKLcAgTJZ9V2lkRpuBKF45PgCgiM21 XPoG9Kfujqym/XfXpoxL8Ss= =ydRI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
