Le Mar 19 juin 2012 06:45, Adam Williamson a écrit :
One trigger for the current proposal was the discovery, quite late in
F17 cycle, that if you reboot while PK is automatically installing
security updates, you can entirely screw your system.
And instead of making the system adapt to system
Hi.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:28:14 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And instead of making the system adapt to system problems (inhibit
reboot during updates) we're making the user adapt to system problems
(add forced reboots were they were none before??)
Inhibiting reboots? I cannot wait to see
On 06/22/2012 01:16 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:28:14 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And instead of making the system adapt to system problems (inhibit
reboot during updates) we're making the user adapt to system problems
(add forced reboots were they were none
On 22 June 2012 12:40, Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, there is difference between inhibited reboot and are you really sure
you want to reboot and break your system questions.
Is that a joke? [Click here to break your system] is never a good idea.
Anyway, what would happen
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 13:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 June 2012 12:40, Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, there is difference between inhibited reboot and are you really sure
you want to reboot and break your system questions.
Is that a joke? [Click here to break
Le Ven 22 juin 2012 13:40, Michal Hlavinka a écrit :
On 06/22/2012 01:16 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:28:14 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And instead of making the system adapt to system problems (inhibit
reboot during updates) we're making the user adapt to system
On 22 June 2012 13:56, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
How do we make sure that if package manager goes crazy the user still
have a way to reboot his system that is not 'press power button for 5
seconds' ?
Just make sure the package manager doesn't go crazy. It's just doing a
simple rpm
On Fri, 22.06.12 08:56, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 13:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 June 2012 12:40, Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, there is difference between inhibited reboot and are you really
sure
you want to reboot and
On 22 June 2012 15:27, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
a) make a snapshot of the fs, and make it where all changes from now on
are written to, but do not make it the default snapshot to be mounted
for the next boot.
b) make the updates
c) if the update succeeded make the
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 14:22:31 +0100,
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2012 13:56, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
How do we make sure that if package manager goes crazy the user still
have a way to reboot his system that is not 'press power button for 5
seconds' ?
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:22 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 June 2012 13:56, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
How do we make sure that if package manager goes crazy the user still
have a way to reboot his system that is not 'press power button for 5
seconds' ?
Just make sure the
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 22:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:22 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 June 2012 13:56, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
How do we make sure that if package manager goes crazy the user still
have a way to reboot his system that is not
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:22:26 + (UTC)
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 13:19:13 GMT, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to do it on shutdown instead of
during start up? I usually do not care if shutdown takes ten
seconds or five
On 20 June 2012 08:08, Stijn Hoop st...@sandcat.nl wrote:
I agree that mind reading computers may not be the final answer...
Well, switching to system-update.service from a running desktop should
probably kill off everything and start the offline update, so that
would be possible with the new
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:22:22 +0100
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2012 08:08, Stijn Hoop st...@sandcat.nl wrote:
I agree that mind reading computers may not be the final answer...
Well, switching to system-update.service from a running desktop should
probably kill off
On 20 June 2012 12:51, Stijn Hoop st...@sandcat.nl wrote:
Good to know, thanks -- although I wonder, in what capacity is this
supported then?
Well, I've got no idea if it works at all, let alone if it works well ;)
Would you / others be willing to deal with both update
timings in this
On 06/18/2012 10:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, even if Mozilla fixed that, such a solution wouldn't work for OS
updates, already due to privilege reasons. i.e. pre-staging changes as
root which are applied when a user does something simply cannot work if
you care about security or
Am 19.06.2012 06:45, schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:32 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
if things are working fine they do not need to be reinvented
and developed forever - the problem i see the last years is
that way to often are wroking things replaced because people
can
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 19.06.2012 06:45, schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:32 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
if things are working fine they do not need to be reinvented
and developed forever - the problem i see the last
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 13:19:13 GMT, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to do it on shutdown instead of during
start up? I usually do not care if shutdown takes ten seconds or five
minutes, but when I start my computer I
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Because designing an asynchronous messaging bus that can be restarted
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Because designing an
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc
On 06/18/2012 02:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
What we shouldn't do is break things further by making almost all
updates require a reboot.
What do you want to do? Either we should fix all the possible issues
with restarting things on demand or we can accept this simpler solution
but
On 18.06.2012 12:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On 18 June 2012 10:50, Alek Paunov a...@declera.com wrote:
As I understand the proposal, the necessary workaround only affects the
desktop instances and specifically Gnome ones - I am under the impression
that my servers will continue to be updated by the normal way.
Exactly. This will not
On 18 June 2012 10:10, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I believe there is or was an effort to replace dbus by something
AMQP-based. However I can't find that right now.
The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
process before it will be running a new
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
process before it will be running a new library version. That mean
testing (and probably patching) every single application and daemon in
our stack
Why testing the daemons? Any
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon -- libvirtd restarts okay (hopefully) but
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing
On 18.06.2012 14:22, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
However, I never tried to update qemu-system with live VMs.
The update will work, but the VMs will still be running the old code.
You can actually solve that problem using VM migration: live migrate
the VM from the old qemu to the new
On 06/17/2012 06:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back into a list of packages,
On 06/18/2012 01:09 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying
On 06/18/2012 01:22 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
Am 18.06.2012 01:09, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk
wrote:
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
On 06/18/2012 05:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
that is not the point because every admin is dong this all the time
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
you rebootet the machine and now
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if this is what you call development then YES we should
stop development now until we have ideas for real
improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
Language like this isn't helpful. Might I suggest
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at
On 18 June 2012 15:32, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
As dbus is required for various things like networkmanager - does this mean
that if a server happens to be using nm for network setup that in order to
apply a security patch to dbus, for example, that the server will require a
Am 18.06.2012 16:20, schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at
Am 18.06.2012 16:27, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if this is what you call development then YES we should
stop development now until we have ideas for real
improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
On Sun, 17.06.12 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
fact, that there are
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing
Am 18.06.2012 18:09, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
So, you have three problems: a) you cannot safely determine what to
restart. b) you cannot restart many components
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
since years in my daily workload and after all are finished the
browser get's restarted or even at the next
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing because Mozilla has built infrastructure to make that
possible. Firefox must be
Am 18.06.2012 18:58, schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
since years in my daily workload and after all are finished
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 19:03 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
currently here are much more problems that firefox needs SIGKILL
without any firefox update - so many of this 0.01% coming
from users only updated extensions, confirmed restart and nothing
happend
i still can't count how often this
On Mon, 18.06.12 15:25, Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net
wrote:
On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing because
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Well, even if Mozilla fixed that, such a solution wouldn't work for OS
updates, already due to privilege reasons. i.e. pre-staging changes as
root which are applied when a user does something simply cannot work if
I wonder if it would be possible to do it on shutdown instead of during
start up?
Perhaps on shutdown, the default shutdown target gets replaced with the
system update target, so that this doesn't affect start up speed.
My issue with this is not the concept or the technical merits, but the
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 12:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:32 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
if things are working fine they do not need to be reinvented
and developed forever - the problem i see the last years is
that way to often are wroking things replaced because people
can not life with the fact that things sometimes are
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
.fesco 869
The
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
fact, that there are only a few situations - like kernel updates -
which requires a reboot of your
On 16/06/12 00:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
.fesco 868
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
.fesco 869
Not much use to Xfce users.
--
Regards,
Frank
Jack of all, fubars
--
devel mailing list
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back into a list of packages, then instruct those
packages to restart
On 16 June 2012 14:04, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the next have solution, searching problem of Lennart?
hopefully this leads not sooner or later in uncareful
designs where it get more and more a must
No, if you mist blame somebody please send insults to me instead. I
asked
On 17 June 2012 11:00, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Not much use to Xfce users.
Xfce doesn't have a native PackageKit client. If you run the
gnome-settings-daemon updates plugin then it just works. I don't
think XFCE has the manpower to re-implement all the stuff needed for
the
On 17/06/12 17:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 11:00, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Not much use to Xfce users.
Xfce doesn't have a native PackageKit client.
If you run the
gnome-settings-daemon updates plugin then it just works.
Not since F16. iirc
I don't
think
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's simply not possible. Some processes like dbus-daemon and
gnome-session just cannot be restarted in this way. It's a complete
fallacy to believe you can update core libraries on a modern Linux
system without
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
And now some mere userspace daemons mean users will constantly need to
reboot for upgrades?
No.
Regressions against featuresets from the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
If slippery slope arguments are to be dismissed when they're used
against new features like systemd (or Wayland or whatever), then
Fedora really does need to draw a line in the sand and say no to bad
effects when they
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
A new feature is being added nothing is getting removed so no there is
no regression.
Thats newspeak if I ever saw any.
Going from a system which generally doesn't prompt users to reboot to
one that does is a regression.
dbus
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
A new feature is being added nothing is getting removed so no there is
no regression.
Thats newspeak if I ever saw any.
Going from a system which
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:40:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Yeah but those where examples not the sole reason why reboots are required.
It is not like if we didn't switch to systemd this problem wouldn't
exist. (which was my point re blaming).
Do we realy need a complete reboot of the system? I
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:01:11PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:40:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Yeah but those where examples not the sole reason why reboots are required.
It is not like if we didn't switch to systemd this problem wouldn't
exist. (which was my
On 17 June 2012 20:01, Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de wrote:
In this case we may save outage time, because we don't have waste time
for the BIOS POST, loading the bootloader and the kernel.
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot.
On 17 June 2012 18:49, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Okay, I'll say why. The core protocol was never designed to support
the dbus-daemon being restarted.
The current design may make restarting
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying several dozen test updates takes another 20 seconds.
Your hardware is too cheap. BIOS boot time is proportional to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying several dozen test updates takes another
On 17 June 2012 11:49, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Because designing an asynchronous messaging bus that can be restarted
without losing any messages is a difficult problem.
--
Matthew Garrett
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 863 F18 Feature: Clojure -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Clojure
.fesco 863
I think Leiminger may be a better name for this feature.
the aim of this feature is the introduction of Lieminger
as an IDE for
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
.fesco 869
The titel of this feature is a lttle misleading for me and the
description of
Hi.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
fact, that there are only a few situations - like kernel updates -
which requires a reboot of your system.
Linux has, in principle, the same problem as Windows, that
Le samedi 16 juin 2012 à 14:57 +0200, Jochen Schmitt a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
.fesco 869
The title
Am 16.06.2012 14:57, schrieb Jochen Schmitt:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
Owner
Name: Richard Hughes Lennart
Am 16.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
Hi.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
fact, that there are only a few situations - like kernel updates -
which requires a reboot of your system.
Linux
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 868 F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo
.fesco 868
I really hope this is rejected. As already discussed in the relevant thread,
it would add bloat to the live images which would force us to drop useful
software
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
#topic ticket 868 F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo
.fesco 868
I really hope this is rejected. As already discussed in the relevant thread,
it
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 23:58:03 +0200,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I really hope this is rejected. As already discussed in the relevant thread,
it would add bloat to the live images which would force us to drop useful
software from the KDE spin to fit the size target. And for
85 matches
Mail list logo
