On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:11:42AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What say you gentlemen?
Based on what I know of partman and with newbie installation in mind,
I would definitely say go fo partman as default on i386 and as an
option on other archs
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-29 14:25]:
Based on what I know of partman and with newbie installation in mind,
I would definitely say go fo partman as default on i386 and as an
option on other archs (except powerpc if it works OK for them?).
Why do you say except powerpc ?
Quoting Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Read the sentence again. He says he considers it the default for i386
and maybe powerpc.
Ok, then, sounds nice for me.
Yes, this is what I intended to write. The idea is : the two archs
were the newbie ratio may be high are i386 and powerpc.
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 01:19:35PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-29 14:25]:
Based on what I know of partman and with newbie installation in mind,
I would definitely say go fo partman as default on i386 and as an
option on other archs (except
.. That is indeed the question of the weekend. We need to decide this by
the end of this weekend to have time for last minute fixes on whichever
system we choose.
I feel that we should decide this on a per-architecture basis if
necessary. I do not want to see arches like sparc have to work to
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 07:37:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
snip
Given everything that parted offers, I am willing to take the risk, make
it default now, work on it furiously, and revisit this in 1.5 weeks. If
we made the wrong decision, we can then backpedal to the old
partitioner.
What
Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What say you gentlemen?
Based on what I know of partman and with newbie installation in mind,
I would definitely say go fo partman as default on i386 and as an
option on other archs (except powerpc if it works OK for them?).
It's some time since I tested
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:35:11PM -0300, Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:45:47PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since
we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory.
On 26.II.2004 at 10:16 Sven Luther wrote:
So, please help in adding LVM/RAID support in libparted, and it will be
supported.
Acording to an install report (#233532) libparted automaticaly detects
the LVM devices even now. For example if an user configures LVM using
lvmcfg and afterwards from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since
we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory.
Well, I think partman rocks. Notably, a lot of people working on extra
architectures and subarchitectures appear to be hoping that
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:45:47PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since
we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory.
Well, I think partman rocks. Notably, a lot of people working on
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 01:45]:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since
| we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory.
|
| Well, I think partman rocks. Notably, a lot of people working on extra
12 matches
Mail list logo
