Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
You'd want to do it something like that.
kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as you
say.
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both of those
and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain.
The idea that
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I'm open to this idea, but I think it's nicer if one can go from the reduced
selection to the full just by adding in the right package, not changing or
removing things. Unlike PAE or etc., I don't think we'd actually build
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:34:00AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
At the moment though, all of this is just talk anyway. If something
like this is to
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:56:21AM -0500, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
I'm really against splitting the modules up into more subpackages,
regardless of how many it is. I will not spend any time looking at how
to do that. I won't spend time discussing further plans to do something
I don't feel
On Thu, 11.10.12 01:48, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
On Wed, 10.10.12 16:50, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
My laptop started acting up last tuesday, I should see whats in the
logs from then
I'd like to run a daily report on my logs
These two are much
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
(but of course I could be wrong).
It use to be
On Tue, 09.10.12 23:24, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
is much less of a necessity than other things the journal provides,
which syslog does not: for example per-service rate limits, and
unfakable
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 02:13:35PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
This is implemented now, but I called it --since= and --until=. I'll
push this into F18 as well, sicne it's actually a minor change only, and
just too useful.
Thanks Lennart. This is great stuff.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
the module - firmware level by generating it from the MODULE_FIRMWARE tags.
(Unless you're relying on
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
[...]
Both - if people want firmware packages split out of linux-firmware, it
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
reasonably-small minimal image,
not true.
Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
think it has to be.
so if that's
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
What the hell did you drink today, Bill? Basically what you're
suggesting is that Fedora move to a kmod model for everything. Which
means you'd have to install all of them by default anyway or the kernel
team would be swamped with
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
reasonably-small minimal image,
not true.
Given that the kernel is
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
think it has to be.
No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel;
use a compressed filesystem, don't use a kernel at all and
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:34:22PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
If it is all about using kernel-minimal (or whatever it is called)
instead of kernel there is no extra work for the ones that build
minimal images at all.
It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
same kernel (identical
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com said:
It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
same kernel (identical vmlinuz) with groups of modules, then I'm
assuming this is the same as what everyone else is proposing.
I would think the only sane way would be to
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
For example, a kernel-minimal that has the kernel and the core
modules loaded in most installs (e.g.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
There will always be requests to move modules from -common to -minimal,
and it shouldn't be a big fight (I would bet most requests would be
pretty obvious). That already exists some for -modules-extras.
That's why I suggest defining
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both
of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
get the kernel metapackage when a transaction asks for something
to provide kernel, but if you
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:40:39 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both
of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
get the kernel
Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
package ?
with vmxnet3, vmw_pvscsi, vmw_balloon to support vSphere
(all included in the upstream
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:38 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
For example, a kernel-minimal that has
On 10/17/2012 01:46 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Random worry about this: would this work OK with yum's keep the last 3
kernels around functionality?
That's obviously something that would have to be tested if this is
attempted.
I'm not signing up for this work, I was just making a suggestion
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
We already build multiple
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
package ?
with vmxnet3,
one may say disk storage is nothing these days
iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
on really expensive SAN-storage where disk space is cheap
is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:36:20PM -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
From: Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
Well, we do currently have the minimal environment, which boils
down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
Total download
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
(but of course I could be wrong).
It use to be optional, I know on the olpc xo-1 it use to be optional
and there should be
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:07:56AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
the module - firmware level
Am 16.10.2012 09:19, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
one may say disk storage is nothing these days
iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
on really expensive SAN-storage where disk space is cheap
is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
for
one may say disk storage is nothing these days
iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
on really expensive SAN-storage where disk space is cheap
is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
for production under load not really a good decision
even if,
On 10/16/2012 01:39 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
one may say disk storage is nothing these days
iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
on really expensive SAN-storage where disk space is cheap
is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
for production under
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
Well, we do currently have the minimal environment, which boils
down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces (authconfig,
system-config-firewall-base, kernel, bootloader). You can get to
that via kickstart with just:
%packages
@core
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
Total download size: 94 M
Installed size: 401 M
Of which one quarter is
From: Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
Well, we do currently have the minimal environment, which boils
down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces (authconfig,
system-config-firewall-base, kernel, bootloader). You can get to
that
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
Total download size:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:24:09 -0400
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
systemd+ util-linux + bash +
Am 15.10.2012 21:34, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:24:09 -0400
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
122659574 kernel
117821428 glibc-common
35623360linux-firmware
14233540coreutils
13845828glibc
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Total download size: 94 M
Installed size: 401 M
Of which one quarter is the kernel and the other quarter is glibc locale
support, right?
Or more:
122659574 kernel
117821428 glibc-common
35623360
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:43:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
It depends. It includes firmware for wired NICs as well as other things,
so it depends on what hardware your virtual environment is deciding to
emulate.
Whatever hardware support is needed to run out-of-box in KVM, Xen,
Am 15.10.2012 21:43, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
122659574 kernel
117821428 glibc-common
35623360linux-firmware
14233540coreutils
13845828glibc
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many
Am 16.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:11:19 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
[...]
I'd agree with Harald here. A hard dep
On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Anaconda isn't going to do that unless there is rpm support to re-docify
yourself. To accomplish this right now, every package would have to split
out a -docs subpackage with all the docs in it. Anaconda /might/ do what you
want in the
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Konstantin Ryabitsev (i...@fedoraproject.org) said:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
Right, you'll have to port them to understand
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Fri, 12.10.12 15:29, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
And we've got a lot of technology going around. journald - that's
technology. rsyslog - that's technology. libumberlog ceelog - that's
Konstantin Ryabitsev (i...@fedoraproject.org) said:
Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
is compatible with the journal. Not to my knowledge, no. But adding this
should be fairly easy as the output of journalctl is a pixel-perfect
copy of the original
On Fri, 12.10.12 15:29, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Heya,
And we've got a lot of technology going around. journald - that's
technology. rsyslog - that's technology. libumberlog ceelog - that's
technology.
THis really makes me wonder where CEE actually belongs in this. Is
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:43:22AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:17:58PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
libxml2 takes up 5.2M, of which 3.8M is docs
It really should go in -devel, I agree !
Check it out -- we've accomplished something with this thread. :)
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:16:49AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
Honestly, we should be building glib2 with --disable-fam, since glib
will prefer the inotify notification module anyway (it has prio 20 and
fam prio 10).
It looks[1] like Matthias was watching
On 10/9/12 12:34 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 10/9/12 9:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
From the list of packages this minimal set still installs, that I'd
really like to see gone:
chkconfig
gamin
info
systemd-sysv
chkconfig seems like it could have the 'alternatives' bit split off.
I've not
On 10/09/2012 09:42 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:59:08AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
In current versions .service is implied if no extension is provided:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39386
About time :-)
Awesome.
And I want to take a moment to thank
On 10/09/2012 10:03 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 17:25, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
Can I pass this somehow to yum? Or do I have to creat a macro file for
this?
You can set it in yum.conf (tsflags=nodocs), but then rpm wont know
about it (so if you
On 09/10/12 15:16, Lennart Poettering wrote:
journalctl -D pathtothejournalfiles
Lennart
Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
--
Regards,
Frank
Jack of all, fubars
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
How do you read this log when the system is not running (e.g.
mounting filesystems of a drive on another system, running from a
rescue image, etc.)?
journalctl -D pathtothejournalfiles
So the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
How do you read this log when the system is not running (e.g.
mounting filesystems of a drive on another system, running from a
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:54:28AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
How do you read this log when the system is not running (e.g.
On tis, 2012-10-09 at 12:34 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 10/9/12 9:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
From the list of packages this minimal set still installs, that I'd
really like to see gone:
chkconfig
gamin
info
systemd-sysv
chkconfig seems like it could have the
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I checked out the code, and it does seem as if the format is intended
to be backwards compatible. It uses a set of filesystem-like
compatible and incompatible flags, so presumably a sufficiently
recent journalctl would be able to read any previous version of the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I checked out the code, and it does seem as if the format is intended
to be backwards compatible. It uses a set of filesystem-like
compatible and incompatible flags, so presumably a sufficiently
On 10/10/2012 08:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This would be essential for libguestfs tools to parse logs out of
guests (we do it now by reading /var/log/messages etc which has all of
the properties you state).
I'm not sure how you are doing this currently but for shutdown guest I
assume
On 10/10/2012 07:54 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 09/10/12 15:16, Lennart Poettering wrote:
journalctl -D pathtothejournalfiles
Lennart
Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
As far as I know logwatch has not been patched to parse and use journal.
Try filing an RFE against logwatch
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:11:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This would be essential for libguestfs tools to parse logs out of
guests (we do it now by reading /var/log/messages etc which has all of
the properties you state).
I'm
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:45:09PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Anaconda isn't going to do that unless there is rpm support to
re-docify yourself. To accomplish this right now, every package
would have to split out a -docs
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
So if my Fedora box won't boot, and I take the disk out and mount it
in a CentOS box, I might not be able to read the log because
journalctl in CentOS might be too old? Not fun.
You can easily just
On Tue, 09.10.12 21:26, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:59PM -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote:
Just on the naming, I'd rather steer clear of the actual concept, let me
get this straight: You want a group called adm, presumably short for
On Wed, 10.10.12 09:50, Björn Persson (bjorn@rombobjörn.se) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
How do you read this log when the system is not running (e.g.
mounting filesystems of a drive on another system, running from a
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 21:26, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:59PM -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote:
Just on the naming, I'd rather steer clear of the actual concept, let me
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:17:58PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
libxml2 takes up 5.2M, of which 3.8M is docs
It really should go in -devel, I agree !
Check it out -- we've accomplished something with this thread. :)
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:12:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
About time :-)
Awesome.
And I want to take a moment to thank everyone for listening to these
concerns. I'm optimistic that we can make this all work very nicely.
Is this documented in the relevant man pages as well?
In fact, I
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:11:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This would be essential for libguestfs tools to parse logs out of
guests (we do it now by
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 01:58:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The group is already there, so it's not a big stretch, but I agree the
naming is confusing when used in this way. (wheel isn't exactly
straightforward either, but at least it's Traditional.)
As I already mentioned: adm has
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:54:13PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:11:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This would be essential for
Alexander Larsson wrote:
Honestly, we should be building glib2 with --disable-fam, since glib
will prefer the inotify notification module anyway (it has prio 20 and
fam prio 10).
It looks[1] like Matthias was watching this thread. Yay!
[1]
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 13:58 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 21:26, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:59PM -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote:
Just on the naming, I'd rather steer clear of the actual concept, let me
get this
I apologize, I'm ill and not generally up to providing detailed
responses. So just some sourced facts to counter [1] untruths.
For education on what current syslogs do,
http://blog.gerhards.net/2012/10/main-advantages-of-rsyslog-v7-vs-v5.html
is a possible start and
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
which syslog does not: for example per-service rate limits,
False. http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/imuxsock.html, There is input rate
limiting
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
and
unfakable meta-data for log messages.
False: http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/imuxsock.html, trusted syslog
properties are available (and in v7 they can be enabled in the Fedora
configuration by default)
It's well meant, but
On Tue, 09.10.12 22:30, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
logrotate has time based policies for very good reasons.
Yeah, because Unix doesn't really allow much else...
Oh come on, stop bashing unix, logrotate could certainly grow a size
checking policy if people felt the need, unix
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 22:30, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
logrotate has time based policies for very good reasons.
Yeah, because Unix doesn't really allow much else...
Oh come on, stop bashing unix, logrotate could certainly grow a size
On Wed, 10.10.12 17:05, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
is much less of a necessity than other things the journal provides,
which
On Wed, 10.10.12 14:16, Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 22:30, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
logrotate has time based policies for very good reasons.
Yeah, because Unix doesn't really allow much else...
Oh come on, stop bashing unix, logrotate could
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 10.10.12 14:16, Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 22:30, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
logrotate has time based policies for very good reasons.
Yeah, because Unix doesn't really allow much else...
On Wed, 10.10.12 08:54, Frank Murphy (frankl...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 09/10/12 15:16, Lennart Poettering wrote:
journalctl -D pathtothejournalfiles
Lennart
Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
is compatible
On Wed, 10.10.12 09:54, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
How do you read this log when the system is not running (e.g.
On Wed, 10.10.12 10:12, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:54:28AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net)
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
is compatible with the journal. Not to my knowledge, no. But adding this
should be fairly easy as
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
i...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
is compatible
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:37:05PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
No, not in the even slightest. I don't think that's even up for discussion.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Kay Sievers wrote:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
What part of Run the syslog daemon like you always did, if you need
syslog files. did you not understand?
Kay,
This is not an
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
What part of Run the syslog daemon like you always did, if you need
syslog files. did you not understand?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
i...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
What part of Run the
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
