Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending
On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not
On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I
want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients
are changing distributions. Period.
I think the point some are trying to make is that Debian's
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:45:53 Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and
On 31 December 2014 18:10:00 GMT+00:00, Andrei POPESCU
andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I
want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients
are changing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 1/01/2015 5:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the
way I want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so
my clients are
On 12/31/2014 1:10 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I
want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients
are changing distributions. Period.
I think the point
On 12/31/2014 1:34 PM, Mike McGinn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:45:53 Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux
because of the wrong impression that it is without cost.
[1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the desired
changes don't go against the Social
On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks,
depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure).
Could you please show us where you've seen this? For the record, again,
from the e2fsprogs changelog:
e2fsprogs
On Lu, 29 dec 14, 18:32:28, Marc Auslander wrote:
Long ago, I decided that inconvenient fsck's were not what I
needed. And that cancelling them was not an option - I run quasi
headless so there's no way.
So - I use tune2fs to set a ridiculous reboot count for automatic
fsck.
Just for the
On 12/30/2014 5:37 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks,
depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure).
Could you please show us where you've seen this? For the record,
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now.
They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will
probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for
production.
If switching to systemd is their main
On 12/30/2014 at 09:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros
now. They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It
will probably take two years for them to get another distro ready
for
On 12/30/2014 9:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now.
They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will
probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending their life working on Linux.
If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending their life working on
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending their life working on Linux.
If Debian is
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending their life working on Linux.
If Debian is
On 12/30/2014 10:07 PM, William Unruh wrote:
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.
I don't think I'm the only one complaining about this Saint
Path:
eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: linux.debian.user
Subject: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: ocnya
Long ago, I decided that inconvenient fsck's were not what I
needed. And that cancelling them was not an option - I run quasi
headless so there's no way.
So - I use tune2fs to set a ridiculous reboot count for automatic
fsck. Then a run a cron job the does a reboot with the -F option once
a
On 12/29/2014 1:31 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.
I don't think
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20
On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20
On 12/29/2014 10:05 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I often give
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500,
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5
On 12/27/2014 7:20 PM, Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
So I think this deserves a bug report.
Don't get carried away and start typing.
#758902
Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more
Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
So I think this deserves a bug report.
Don't get carried away and start typing.
#758902
Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably
On Mon 22 Dec 2014 at 11:58:55 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
So I think this deserves a bug report.
Don't get carried away and start typing.
#758902
On Dec 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote:
15 seconds extra, a couple times a year isn't all THAT bad.
FWIW, I think I found out why ext4 fsck's faster than ext3 (or the other
exts). Seems ext4 only checks the part of the filesystem that's been
El Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:33PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU escribió:
On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a
dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it
is a very fast check. My
On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote:
Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
which struck me as reliable.
As far
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote:
Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a
On 2014-12-12, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some
more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ),
He also says nothing about what forced him to reinstall so many times, nor
why he concludes it is due to an absence of fsck file
* Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
[...] I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before
shutdown -r now:
touch /forcefsck
On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de wrote:
* Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
[...] I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before
shutdown -r now:
touch /forcefsck
On booting, fsck is run on all partitions,
On Sat 13 Dec 2014 at 20:26:02 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de wrote:
* Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
[...] I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before
shutdown -r now:
Joel Rees writes:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de
wrote:
shutdown(8)
-F Force fsck on reboot.
Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.
By the way the -F flag causes /forcefsck to appear
--
/\ ___
On 12/13/2014 10:31 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
Joel Rees writes:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de
wrote:
shutdown(8)
-F Force fsck on reboot.
Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.
By the way the -F flag causes
On 2014-12-13, Jape Person jap...@comcast.net wrote:
Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of
/forcefsck?
I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it
might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route, which avoids
writing to a potentially
On 12/13/2014 12:26 PM, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-13, Jape Person jap...@comcast.net wrote:
Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of
/forcefsck?
I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it
might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route,
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
* Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
[...] I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root
before
shutdown -r now:
touch /forcefsck
On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a
dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it
is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the
205GB /home in about 10
On 12/13/2014 at 02:45 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER
had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice
thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER
had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice
thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less
Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca writes:
users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt
various long-running operations (typically waiting
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
at
Jerry Stuckle writes:
This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.
Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on max mount or
time exceeded work to do what you want and
Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone
had an fsck? It's been ages since I last had one. Inquiring minds, Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 19:16:03, Reco wrote:
Note that Ubuntu limits sudo-allows-all configuration to the first
created user by default.
As does Debian (if a root password isn't set).
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and
2014/12/11 19:39 Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com:
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote:
Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an
automatic fsck.
I did nothing in particular to enable that.
I think you are reading things into the
On Friday 12 December 2014 11:43:41 Ric Moore wrote:
Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone
had an fsck?
2 days ago. Automatic.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
Jerry Stuckle writes:
This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.
Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on
Atomic in the original word meaning can't be cut, and stopping is a form of
cutting. Rolling back is a strategy to permit stopping an atomic operation,
but I am unsure thi can be done always.
The fact that *some* actions need to be atomic doesn't prevent
interrupting various (other)
On 20141211_1257+0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 10:11:53 +, Darac Marjal wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
Jerry Stuckle writes:
This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.
Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or
On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
Jerry Stuckle writes:
This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.
Plan to use it outside of these
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
to run one remains.
Which is fine. I can run it during the day when I'm not under a
deadline. The problem is only
On 12/12/2014 2:34 PM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
to run one remains.
Which is fine. I can run it during the day when I'm not under a
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:
Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated
On 12/12/2014 6:47 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:
Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:
Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts
and a picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much
confidence you can place
Christian Groessler writes:
^C could be unresponsive nevertheless, the process being stuck in kernel
space and thus completely oblivious of the signals thrown at it.
This would be a different problem hinting at a kernel bug...
Non necessarily a bug. We have to accept that exist
Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca writes:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long enough
intervals, that I can never know if it was 4 months ago or 7 months
ago, and neither can I remember which laptop/desktop has the delay set
to 172 days vs 194 days vs 98 days
2014/12/11 3:48 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk:
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for your
findings.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote:
Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an
automatic fsck.
I did nothing in particular to enable that.
I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be
there.
Check filesystem creation date:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:16:05PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
2014/12/11 3:48 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk:
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling
Hi,
fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.
What if I do not have that time,
Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if
required).
Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work just
before boarding a plane is now at risk.
Just
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100
Mart van de Wege mvdw...@gmail.com wrote:
This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day,
complaining about not being able to login as root.
And how do you keep a multi-user box safe if any user can sudo ?
Cheers,
Ron.
--
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can
manipulate the Maximum mount count without
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 10:53:07 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the
problem.
When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we
can plan. When it simply runs because it does that sometimes, no
thank you, I would
Bonno Bloksma writes:
Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some
work just before boarding a plane is now at risk.
Just before boarding some plane is the bad time and place for some
work.
Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing
updates when
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 20141210_1830+, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt
various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
during boot.
Stefan
--
On 12/11/2014 05:09 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for
On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can
Stefan Monnier writes:
users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt
various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
Hi.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:51:23 -0300
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI ren...@olgiati-in-paraguay.org wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100
Mart van de Wege mvdw...@gmail.com wrote:
This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day,
complaining about not being able to
users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt
various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
during boot.
But some
On 12/11/2014 5:53 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Hi,
fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.
What if I do not have that time,
Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if
required).
Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work just
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?
As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is concerned I've already
mentioned grub's
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?
As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574
To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent:
snip
The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still
getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were
newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).
I've just disabled the automatic
On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can
On 12/11/2014 03:37 PM, Charlie wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent:
snip
The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still
getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were
newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).
Atomic in the original word meaning can't be cut, and stopping is a form of
cutting. Rolling back is a strategy to permit stopping an atomic operation, but
I am unsure thi can be done always.
--
Gian Uberto Lauri
Messaggio inviato da un tablet
On 11/dic/2014, at 17:42, Stefan Monnier
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
