On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
/user feature that I think you would benefit from reading it.
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
If you have read it,
On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
would we care now?
I feel mildly insulted by that argument.
Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick
Morning people,
Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
going forward.
I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16 shortly. I have
been using yum to upgrade 2 of them since Fedora
On Fri, 27.01.12 22:40, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
people targetting FHS compliant systems (unless the FHS changes)
That's the biggest flaw of this feature: It violates the FHS!
You know, not even its former editor seems to to believe that (or that
On Sat, 28.01.12 11:29, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
would we care now?
I feel mildly
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 11:27 +, phantomjinx wrote:
Morning people,
Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
going forward.
I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16
2012/1/28 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de:
Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick Windows?
No /usr, no /bin = /redhat. Seems to be the spirit behind all this.
Ralf
The rhetoric spoils the argument. Various people inside of Red Hat are
either for this, against this, wanting to
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 15:07, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:51 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits.
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/118#comment:7
Well, IMHO if this is not safe to do in a %pretrans, it is not safe to do at
all.
You seem to imply doing things in %pretrans is somehow safer than
somewhere
Am 27.01.2012 14:15, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
there is no limited sense of security
each machine has a clone for backup-reasons
this clones are updated first
so after that i know the exactly behavior
In a strict sense, no, you
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I don't understand why we absolutely HAVE to change directories to symlinks
when we KNOW RPM doesn't support this, and that in directories as
Am 27.01.2012 18:00, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I don't understand why we absolutely HAVE to change directories to symlinks
when we KNOW RPM doesn't
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third party scripts, scripts that have
been in use on local systems, written by people who have long
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third party scripts, scripts that have
been in use on
Am 27.01.2012 18:33, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third
On 01/27/2012 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
why in the world is a currently useless feature much more forced
than the change of the init-system?
perhaps this change is wanted/needed by the new init system for some
reason that may not be apparent at the moment ...
resource usage
On 01/27/2012 07:32 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
perhaps this change is wanted/needed by the new init system
No, systemd does not care.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
/user feature that I think you would
On 01/27/2012 01:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits
On 01/28/2012 12:59 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
So this is all for the benefit of the/some Vendor?
??? Read the pages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
If you have questions, please be specific.
Rahul
--
Nils Philippsen wrote:
You seem to imply doing things in %pretrans is somehow safer than
somewhere else. I don't think so -- as Panu said: The whole %pretrans
thing is a scary hack that's best seen as a last resort to do the
minimal required tweak that just cannot be done elsewhere...
I do
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
people targetting FHS compliant systems (unless the FHS changes)
That's the biggest flaw of this feature: It violates the FHS!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 07:40 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:26:01PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 09:24 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
+1
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
the feature
On 01/27/2012 06:33 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third
On 01/27/2012 07:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits
Adam Williamson wrote:
The reason yum upgrades are not supported is specifically to leave
open the possibility of doing significant changes that are not
compatible with yum upgrades, if the significant change has a large
enough benefit to be worth the pain of breaking the yum upgrade path.
Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
+1
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
the feature reverted.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
Greg wrote:
i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh installations),
which means the process
I wrote:
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn
and the feature reverted.
PS: Oh, and I don't see why this cannot be fixed by a %pretrans scriptlet in
filesystem rather than a script we have to run by hand. That's what
%pretrans is for. (We successfully used
Aleksandar Kurtakov:
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking yum upgrade upgrades from older
releases to F17?
Am 26.01.2012 05:02, schrieb
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
+1
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
On 01/26/2012 02:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little
On 26/01/2012 7:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh installations),
which means the process is completely broken due to
Am 26.01.2012 10:42, schrieb Greg:
if one doesnt like it then all i can suggest is move to a different Distro.
just because it's gonna interupt people from using yum upgrade dist or
whatever. this is the 21st century yanno. technology does improve
or get better.
where is the improvement
On 26/01/2012 8:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
where is the improvement or does anything get better if things
worked for years got damaged? you definition of improvement
must have a bug!
first thing. i agree that the Linux Filesystem needs to be cleaned up.
by doing what redhat/Fedora is
Am 26.01.2012 12:29, schrieb Greg:
On 26/01/2012 8:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
where is the improvement or does anything get better if things
worked for years got damaged? you definition of improvement
must have a bug!
first thing. i agree that the Linux Filesystem needs to be cleaned up.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:42:15PM +1100, Greg wrote:
On 26/01/2012 7:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
things are fine BEFORE reboot (bootloader-config,
package-cleanup --problems, ), optimize/correct things
you know are not fine after the upgrade
Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
things are fine BEFORE reboot (bootloader-config,
package-cleanup --problems, ),
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
things are fine BEFORE reboot
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that yum upgrade
between releases would be
Am 26.01.2012 15:07, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most
On 26/01/12 14:43, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Not really true. yum upgrade will be supported, but it needs a little help
with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
that dracut can convert your filesystem. After this filesystem conversion, yum
upgrade will work without
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a
Am 26.01.2012 15:51, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On 26/01/12 14:43, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Not really true. yum upgrade will be supported, but it needs a little help
with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
that dracut can convert your filesystem. After this
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC from the discussion in FPC meetings, there should be a way to make yum
upgrades work but you'd first have to boot up specially and run an initial
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:40:33AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I wrote:
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn
and the feature reverted.
PS: Oh, and I don't see why this cannot be fixed by a %pretrans scriptlet in
filesystem rather than a script we have to
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC from the discussion in FPC meetings, there should be a way to make yum
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:26:01PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
wrote:
IIRC
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote:
Not really true. yum upgrade will be supported, but it needs a little help
with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
that dracut can convert your filesystem. After this filesystem
Am 26.01.2012 17:19, schrieb Ed Marshall:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote:
Not really true. yum upgrade will be supported, but it needs a little help
with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
that dracut can convert your
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
As you've been pointing out, this is a recipe for alpha slippage (and
since recently we've been slipping all later milestones, a slip in alpha
means a slip to the release) but I don't think the feature owners are
technically doing anything wrong under the current policy
Ed Marshall wrote:
Without revealing my own preference about rolling releases: how would
a change like this, whose deployment is *significantly* eased with
install-time magic, be deployed in a rolling-release world?
It would be guaranteed total and utter chaos.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Greg wrote:
as i will say again i have no problems downloading a LiveCD or a DvD. if
i have had 1 DE installed i'll download a LiveCD only rather than a DvD,
Have you even READ what I wrote? Live CDs CANNOT UPGRADE, only reinstall.
And no, I will definitely NOT reinstall at every release.
as essential
as /bin etc. The whole UsrMove feature is flawed and I don't understand
why it didn't get thrown out immediately when proposed.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
day for everything just doesn't work.
PS: I still think both the LD DSO feature and this UsrMove feature are
features we'd better do without. They bring no tangible benefit and lots
of very tangible problems.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
Kevin Kofler wrote:
As I've already stated multiple
times, the DVD MUST be fixed to include the updates repository for
upgrades
And that means that bug 998 needs to be fixed.
Installing packages from the ISO image without checking them is OK, because a
security-conscious user will have
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that yum upgrade
between releases would be explicitly broken due to this feature.
Yes, I know that
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that yum upgrade
between
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that yum upgrade
between releases would be explicitly broken
On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Am 26.01.2012 03:03, schrieb Greg:
On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
for one simple desktop, but realize your
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 03:03, schrieb Greg:
On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
i don't have any problems
Am 26.01.2012 04:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 01/26/2012 08:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2012 03:57, schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
And realize that Fedora is a community project with no guarantee
whatsoever.
and that is a valueable argument for breaking things
without really good
On 01/26/2012 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i see really nothing wrong in demanding not break things randomly without
VERY good reasons and in this context it does relly not matter
if opensource /paid / whatever
Nobody breaks things randomly. Sometimes changes have unintentional
side
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking yum upgrade upgrades from older
releases to F17?
Am 26.01.2012 05:02, schrieb Rahul
Am 26.01.2012 08:06, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking yum upgrade upgrades fromolder
releases to F17
Am 30.10.2011 23:02, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Mon, 24.10.11 13:05, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
Here's an attempt to summarize the rationale for merging /bin, /sbin,
/usr/sbin into /usr/bin with different words collecting the various points
raised:
a) the split between
On Fri, 28.10.11 14:26, Zing (z...@fastmail.fm) wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove would then
On Mon, 24.10.11 13:05, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
Here's an attempt to summarize the rationale for merging /bin, /sbin,
/usr/sbin into /usr/bin with different words collecting the various points
raised:
a) the split between sbin and bin requires psychic powers from
upstream
On 10/27/2011 08:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net said:
One big question though: can RPM handle such a change? IIRC, when the
switch from /etc/rc.d/init.d to /etc/init.d was made, initially
everything was going to be moved and the old paths symlinked
This feature is going to cause a lot of churn.
Aside from the huge changes within fedora I
think a bigger issue will be downstream of fedora
where third party packages and configs will
require large changes. I would worry we might
alienate our users a bit with this?
Now I'm all for clean up, but
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/27/2011 08:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
The strategy is:
- Replace binaries in /bin /sbin /usr/sbin /lib /lib64 with symlinks to
their counterpart in /usr. Symlinking is done in rpm %post. Symlinks are
part of the filelist
One thing I'm not clear on is when the switch between the initramfs and the
actual / filesystem is performed. For instance, what does the user get if
they boot single user? What do they get if they boot single user and /usr
is on an nfs filesystem?
-Toshio
pgpC7SFu4zoLJ.pgp
Description: PGP
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove would then make fedora systems
from now on specifically require the use
Am 28.10.2011 16:26 schrieb Zing z...@fastmail.fm:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove would then make
On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com said:
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
historical
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.comsaid:
Having said that, the split
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com said:
Having said that, the split between
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
That would also mean that libreoffice (using /usr/lib*/libreoffice)
should have all binaries there? I guess not.
It has always been that way. There are only shell scripts in
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:46, Harald Hoyer harald.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
4.6. /usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages
4.6.1. Purpose
/usr/lib includes object files and libraries. ^[22] On some systems, it
may also include internal binaries that are not intended to be executed
On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
===
* Discussion about
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:51, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
That would also mean that libreoffice (using /usr/lib*/libreoffice)
should have all binaries there? I guess not.
of attitudes and skills on their payrole - Rest assured, the
vast majority is doing an excellent job, but there are a few who do not.
But ... this UsrMove feature ... with all due respect, I was shocked
when reading it. To me, this proposal is the silliest and dumbest thing,
I have ever seen
On 10/27/2011 11:00 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
On 10/27/2011 03:01 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 10/27/2011 11:00 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:34:45AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
In context, at least, this is wrong advice as it's a violation of the FHS:
http://pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE22
Purpose
/usr/lib includes object files,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 02:51, Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:46, Harald Hoyer harald.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
4.6. /usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages
4.6.1. Purpose
/usr/lib includes object files and libraries. ^[22] On some systems, it
may
Once upon a time, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net said:
One big question though: can RPM handle such a change? IIRC, when the
switch from /etc/rc.d/init.d to /etc/init.d was made, initially
everything was going to be moved and the old paths symlinked for a few
releases. However, there was
On 10/25/2011 07:23 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Yet as long as it is not done, encrypting /usr is no improvement. And
even if it is done, you would also need to verify that nobody installed
a keyboard logger on your device if your fear attackers that have easily
physical access to the device in
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:36:57PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
[...] but /bin/mount won't mount it even if I own both the image and the
mount point.
You can mount things that the administrator has set up for you in
/etc/fstab.
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
Dne 25.10.2011 20:24, Michał Piotrowski napsal(a):
W dniu 25 października 2011 09:26 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
mkkp...@gmail.com napisał:
W dniu 25 października 2011 09:20 użytkownik Harald Hoyer
har...@redhat.com napisał:
On 10/24/2011 10:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
In any case
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com said:
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
historical one, ie. it didn't exist in V7. I think it was added by
System V which did a lot of other strange stuff too.
Well, historically, a bunch of system
Once upon a time, Harald Hoyer harald.ho...@gmail.com said:
For daemons, which should not be called directly on the command line, I
would suggest to move them to /usr/lib/packagename/ anyway.
That's what /usr/libexec is for. /usr/lib{,64} is for libraries and
such, not executables.
--
Chris
On 10/26/2011 03:18 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com said:
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
historical one, ie. it didn't exist in V7. I think it was added by
System V
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
===
* Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
(t8m, 17:26:45)
Sometimes you have to clean up your room and
Once upon a time, Harald Hoyer harald.ho...@gmail.com said:
About sbin: How exactly does hiding stuff prevent users, who open a
_shell_, to use those tools? They cannot do any bad stuff with it anyway.
It isn't about hiding, it is about not putting tools in your PATH that
you generally can't
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
