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.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:44:47AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu 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
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
On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
* Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumensclum...@redhat.com - 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):
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 way,
2010/10/19 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org:
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
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
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, ignoring bugs
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org 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
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
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 Lumensclum...@redhat.com - 15.3-1
- Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
This
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 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? From
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 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
other
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 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)
I'm
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 doesn't require
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 encrypted and
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 mentioned) is for
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 to prevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=305131
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=454373action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
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, for
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 it.
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 enough users to
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 plausible enough, imo. There
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 they do, lots of
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, which is
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org 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
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 ways.
Very few
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 is NOT a
niche
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
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.
Given
On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org 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
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 on other
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 you
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 daemons
Once upon a time, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com 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,
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
-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 the
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
is
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 this list,
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't
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 him?
I'd
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
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 separate
-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 report: 20101019 changes
I
Once upon a time, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org 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
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
- Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
b...@fedoraunity.org wrote:
- Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com 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
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 where
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
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 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.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 19:58, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 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
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
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640752
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627192
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-19
03:14:08 EDT ---
perl-5.10.0-96.fc12 has been
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627192
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640752
--- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-10-19 06:44:22 EDT ---
Yes, the fix is in perl-5.12.2-136.fc14 (see RPM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640752
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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
63 matches
Mail list logo
