On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
code was slow or anything, but simply because it isn't really written in
the way that things are expected to work these days. The LVM assembly at
boot is
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
biosdevname installed by default, used
Hello!
2010/11/14 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com:
Hi packagers,
I've a re-review request for hatari:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=62
Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this?
I'll take it.
Here is my review request:
erlang-rpm-macros -
Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
code was slow or
Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become an
option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is rpm-based
distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros has moved to
GRUB2. however, rpm-based distros still stays at GRUB legacy. I can
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:12:18 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Thanks to http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/RepoQuery
If you need to figure out which srpms have a buildrequirement on a
particular pkgname run:
repoquery --archlist=src --repoid=some_repo_with_srpms \
-q --whatrequires pkgname
Aha!
On 14/11/10 12:18, Liang Suilong wrote:
Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become
an option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is
rpm-based distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros
has moved to GRUB2. however, rpm-based
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:22:42PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
anymore. There is no major
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:54:02 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
I despair of making *nix input people understand that LANGAGE ≠ INPUT
Please stop trying to derive one from the other, they are *distinct*
and one can
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:17:57 -0500, Andre Robatino wrote:
James Antill wrote:
IMO, as has been said before, if you have a delta method that doesn't
produce the exact same bits at the end ... you've probably failed. It
might seem like a good idea, but even if you go to the extreme lengths
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:11:11PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/13/2010 06:34 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
ethX to clearly labeled lomX matching the chassis
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:57:59AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
Fedora 15 may be
On Sun, 14.11.10 13:14, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
LVM
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
If there are no security updates, people can not apply them. So what is
worse? If people stop applying updates, then it is at least their
decision. If there are no updates, people can only choose not to use
Many
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:26:48PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
*DE could consider switching the default to use EXT4 directly without
LVM. [1]
1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
The
On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
never reaches the drive.
Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:15 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/13/2010 10:45 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Kevin Fenzi writes:
* gnome3 / gnome-shell default
Does anyone happen to know how to mimic the equivalent of panel
Hi.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:44:06 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote
Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
Discard aside, btrfs should include all (or most of) the features
that LVM and raid0 were giving you, anyway.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/13/2010 18:15, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
yum install mock
useradd mockbuild
usermod -G mock mockbuild
Unless you want to ``su'' to a dedicated mockbuild account every time
you want to build you should add your usual account to the mock group
instead.
mock rebuild -r
btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot carve out an ordinary partition
from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive is LVM, then that portion of
the drive is LVM forever until the LVM is
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:38:50PM +, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
I'd say do try a rebuild of affected packages yourself, and notify the
maintainers only in case there is a breakage and coordinate on what to do
(otherwise they'd get an unpleasant FTBFS report).
That was helpful, thank
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot carve out an
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
Oops, that's not completely true: pvresize currently is not smart enough
to move allocated data out of the area to be freed, according to its man
page. But you have other options, e.g., you can attach another disk,
On 11/14/2010 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
never reaches the drive.
Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
You should also file a bug against the tool that
On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot carve out an ordinary partition
from an
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:41:00 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM inside of a software RAID0
array on two Intel SSDs mounted with discard enabled. Am I being lied
to about discard being enabled?
You probably want
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
(3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
then I could not remove one of the partitions from the clutches
of the
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:03 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
ago.
It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers which
Once upon a time, Roberto Ragusa m...@robertoragusa.it said:
I don't remember if pvmove can use the same PV as src and dest;
in that case you could avoid the need of an extra disk
when your PV is just fragmented.
You can; you have to specify manually the source and destination PEs,
and IIRC
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:38:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot carve out an ordinary partition
from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive is
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:07:28PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One
On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
(3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
then I could not remove one
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 21:23, Michel Alexandre Salim
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
has any idea what's going on here?
No idea, but you might be on the way to an hexadecimal dollar!
Regards,
--
Pierre Carrier
--
On 11/15/2010 12:00 AM, John Reiser wrote:
On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
(3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
and gave 6 of the partitions to
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:48:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
LVM is important and useful for managing storage. If, in the future, we have
ZFS-like features in btrfs or whatever, okay, we can talk about getting rid
of it. But a few-second gain in boot time is really, really, really not
commit 10d73f1e3487bef95714bf8165211dffcb46c595
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 14 09:39:45 2010 +0100
update to 1.12
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Moose.spec | 13 +
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
diff
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-Patricia:
de3cac16665db8de663d8fece4997136 Net-Patricia-1.18_81.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 45887178bd360a2b86812c89ddc2b8f68d883b97
Author: Philip Prindeville phil...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Sun Nov 14 13:33:49 2010 -0700
Improve parameter checking.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-Patricia.spec |7 ++-
sources|2 +-
3 files changed,
Summary of changes:
2075f03... Maintenance version update. (*)
351f6ca... Improve parameter checking; handle 'undef' as $data argumen
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
commit 351f6caf39140e8e83fc50e627745a228016ed50
Author: Philip A. Prindeville phil...@builder.redfish-solutions.com
Date: Sun Nov 14 13:28:42 2010 -0700
Improve parameter checking; handle 'undef' as $data argument.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-Patricia.spec |5 -
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=647503
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-14
16:30:48 EST ---
perl-Log-Dispatch-2.27-1.fc13
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=647503
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=596103
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-14
16:34:18 EST ---
perl-Net-Patricia-1.18-1.fc13
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=596103
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=647503
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-14
16:38:26 EST ---
perl-Log-Dispatch-2.27-1.fc14
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=647503
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary of changes:
4588717... Improve parameter checking. (*)
e623d13... Merge branch 'master' into f13
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
commit e623d13aecc45e6e7139fa445da3e57008241808
Merge: 351f6ca 4588717
Author: Philip Prindeville phil...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Sun Nov 14 23:31:29 2010 -0700
Merge branch 'master' into f13
Conflicts:
perl-Net-Patricia.spec
perl-Net-Patricia.spec |4 +++-
1 files
49 matches
Mail list logo
