On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Cleaver, Japheth wrote:
> A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
> /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
> now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Not sure if it's directly related to t
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 19:58, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
>> Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
>> reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
>> It's entirely a historical consideration.
>
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham said:
> Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
> > Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
> > reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
> > It's entirely a historical consideration.
>
> Somewhe
Cleaver, Japheth (jclea...@soe.sony.com) said:
> A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
> /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
> now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Given that it involves bind-mounting *fil
Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
> Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
> reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
> It's entirely a historical consideration.
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX whe
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
wrote:
>
> - "Yao Ziyuan" wrote:
>
>> Imagine gedit showing an English text, some letters displayed in Sans
>> and others in Serif. That terrible inconsistency is what is happening
>> with Fedora 13's handling of Chinese display in gedit (a
- "Yao Ziyuan" wrote:
> Imagine gedit showing an English text, some letters displayed in Sans
> and others in Serif. That terrible inconsistency is what is happening
> with Fedora 13's handling of Chinese display in gedit (and probably
> elsewhere).
>
> In a clean Fedora 13 installation wit
Imagine gedit showing an English text, some letters displayed in Sans
and others in Serif. That terrible inconsistency is what is happening
with Fedora 13's handling of Chinese display in gedit (and probably
elsewhere).
In a clean Fedora 13 installation with the package group "Chinese
Support" ins
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> > Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> > having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
> > could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't b
Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
> could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't break
> each other) ... do we have other solutions for that?
O
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf
> Of Lennart Poettering
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:38 AM
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Subject: Re: rawhide rep
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
> mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
> have some examples?
So first off, I personally don't care if /usr is allowed to be separat
On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
>> On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
>>> vs. how many of them are didn't-anticipate-alternate-partitioning
>>> problems?
>>
>> If I un
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 18:30UTC (2:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
= Followups =
#topic Updates policy
#351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351
#
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 21:26 +0200, Thomas Spura a écrit :
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:50:24 +0200
> Chris Spike wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Mohamed unfortunately doesn't answer
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578957 or private mail, so
> > does anybody know how to get in touch with
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:50:24 +0200
Chris Spike wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mohamed unfortunately doesn't answer
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578957 or private mail, so
> does anybody know how to get in touch with him?
I'd try pikachu_2014 [at] jabber.fr (obviously via XMPP ;-)), but I
didn
On 10/19/2010 09:10 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 20:50 +0200, Chris Spike wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Mohamed unfortunately doesn't answer
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578957 or private mail, so
>> does anybody know how to get in touch with him?
>
> I think he reads
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 20:50 +0200, Chris Spike wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mohamed unfortunately doesn't answer
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578957 or private mail, so
> does anybody know how to get in touch with him?
I think he reads this list, and he is almost always on IRC, his nickname
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> If separate /usr isn't considered a valid configuration, why do we have
> separate /bin, /sbin, /lib{,64}?
Today it isn't necessarily valid. Things do progress, and the reasons
for separate /usr back in th
Hi,
Mohamed unfortunately doesn't answer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578957 or private mail, so
does anybody know how to get in touch with him?
Regards, Chris
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
> On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
> > vs. how many of them are didn't-anticipate-alternate-partitioning
> > problems?
>
> If I understand your distinction correctly, then the o
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
> > mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
> > have some examples?
>
> Password/Shadow files? SSL Certs/SSL Keys for various kinds of dae
On 10/19/2010 03:29 PM, TK009 wrote:
> I got an email this morning from the Fusion Linux group. In it, the
> group lead suggested this to one of his users -
>
> "Fusion 14 betais based on Fedora 14 which isn't released yet so there
> could be number of bugs that haven't been fixed yet. I suggest
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located o
On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
>> Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
>> partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
>> are only triggered by this niche usecase.
>
> And how many of th
On 10/19/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:43:49AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> This is out of 1,702,459 submissions of profiles that included filesystem
>> data. So about 3% of users have something mounted in /usr and about 2.2%
>> have /usr mounted directly.
>
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:43:49AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> This is out of 1,702,459 submissions of profiles that included filesystem
> data. So about 3% of users have something mounted in /usr and about 2.2%
> have /usr mounted directly.
Given that you have to go out of your way to do it, th
Compose started at Tue Oct 19 13:15:06 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit)
rakudo-0.0.2010.08_2.7.0-1.fc14.x86_64 requires
libparrot.so.2.7.0()(64bit)
Broken deps fo
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
> >>>
> >>> Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it i
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
>>>
>>> Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
>>> niche usecase.
>>>
>>> You can't have it both w
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
> partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
> are only triggered by this niche usecase.
And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
On Tue, 19.10.10 16:51, Stanislav Ochotnicky (sochotni...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
> > example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
> > supported here, wh
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
> >
> > Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
> > niche usecase.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
> Very few people do it. When the
On 10/19/2010 11:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
> a separate partition.
Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
>>>
>>> that's not plausi
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> >>> So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
> >>> a separate partition.
> >>
> >> Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
> >
> > that's not plausible enough, imo. There is clear gain to eno
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It doesn't. You can make it a read-only bind mount.
>
> If the files are still read-write at another location then something
> iterating over disks/locations can still find i
On 10/19/2010 11:15 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
> /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=305131
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=454373&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > > > example) or mounted readonly
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > >
> > > > another benefit (not yet mentio
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> >
> > > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have
> > > / and
> > > /home
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
> > > system.
> >
> > That do
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>
> > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> > and
> > /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> and
> /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
I'm kind of curious about this. What's on / that benefits from being
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
> > system.
>
> That doesn't require it to be a separate partition.
Mounting the location meanin
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 15:56:54 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> >
> > Filesystem):
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on
> >
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:38:13AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> /opt is a location filled with vendor detritus on a lot of systems -
> sometimes managed by rpms, sometimes not. It's not uncommon to have /opt
> automounted via nfs. Additionally, on some workstastion systems /opt is
> a separate drive
On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
> example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
> supported here, which is technically true, but so far not officially).
Where did you get that idea? Fro
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On Tue, 19.10.10 14:43, Paul Howarth (p...@city-fan.org) wrote:
>
> On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
> > anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
> >
> > * Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumens - 15.3-1
> > - Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
>
> This despite th
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:24:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> A smaller / that is written to less often is less susceptible to errors.
> If you don't allocate enough space for / up front, you can move /usr and
> /opt to separate filesystems later. /opt can be completely
> unpredictable in space
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
> >partitions or
On 19/10/10 15:01, Chris Lumens wrote:
>> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
>> Filesystem):
>>
>> /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>> partitions or filesystems.
>
> Neat.
>
>> Do we *really* want to head this way, igno
> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> Filesystem):
>
>/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>partitions or filesystems.
Neat.
> Do we *really* want to head this way, ignoring bugs resulting from
> having /usr on a diff
We've made great progress on open Fedora 14 blocker bugs since last
week. Thank you package owners for all your hard work!
The list of bugs below are currently blocking the creation of the final
release candidate (RC). These bugs must be addressed as soon as
possible so that a solid release c
2010/10/19 Paul Howarth :
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/#626007
Comments are worth reading, I'm sure.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> Filesystem):
>
>/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>partitions or filesystems.
>
> Do we *really* want to head this
On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
> anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
>
> * Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumens - 15.3-1
> - Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt,
Hi all,
A heads-up to those whose packages depend on vala-devel: vala-0.11.0
has renamed its .pc file from vala-0.10.pc to libvala-0.12.pc
F-14 will ship with vala-0.10.0 as we're too close to release time for
a potentially breaking update.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Cont
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:44:47AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chuck Anderson said:
> > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 02:03:20PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > Yes, indeed, it seems more likely a bug in the FTP server (pure-ftpd),
> > > but it would be very nice to have a workarou
Compose started at Tue Oct 19 08:15:14 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
R-RScaLAPACK-0.6.1-4.fc14.x86_64 requires libmpi.so.0()(64bit)
R-RScaLAPACK-0.6.1-4.fc14.x86_64 requires libopen-rte.so.0()(64bit)
R-RScaLAPACK-
Greetings folks,
We've nearly finished all the tests in the installation test result page
with the contribution of testers and now there's only one test left for
testing:
QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_efidisk.img
This test validates booting from a efidisk.img on a system capable of
supporting EFI. Th
Hi!
I would like to go throught review prosses for two packages: q4wine and
k4dirstat.
q4wine.It is a qt4 GUI for wine. It could help one to manage wine prefixes and
installed applications.General features:* Can export QT color theme into wine
colors settings.* Can easy work with different wine
63 matches
Mail list logo
