Le 20/11/2018 à 11:32, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Well, AFAIU, you compile your own kernel, with device drivers
in the kernel, instead of modules (not possible for all), and don't
use the packaged kernel/initrd provided by Debian.
That's not _precisely_ what I
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:17:45PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
[cut]
>
> Note: the mini.iso is a barebone netinst, and tasksel does not
> currently work (I am on that). The "Package selection" step will
> fail. Just skip it, continue with the installation, and then install
> stuff with apt-get after
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:16:04AM +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Maintaining the option of choosing between the two is what Devuan is
> > trying to do, knowing that it might become harder to support it as
> > time passes. My guess is that there is no real reason for the basic
> >
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:12:23AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 20:56, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>
On 21/11/18 at 20:56, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> I've been following the
On 22/11/18 at 00:46, Svante Signell wrote:
> A historical note: The GNU/Hurd people tried to do the merge the other (and
> right) way around:
Why are we to take for granted that that way is the right way and that
it does make sense for present-day rollouts?
[...]
> Let's bring som history
On 22/11/18 at 02:16, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 21.11.18 17:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
>>
>> No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
>> all the
On 21/11/18 at 23:16, Daniel Reurich wrote:
[...]
> To be honest I don't even think the option should be presented at
> install time - certainly not in the way it's currently being presented
> in the installer - adding yet another dialogue.
>
> I suggest we add it as option in the
On 21/11/18 at 19:04, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:50:42 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/18 at 18:39, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:25:02 +0100
>>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>>
On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote:
>> Of course we are, why
On 21.11.18 17:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been following the discussion with interest.
>
>
> No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
> all the points that were expressed against the merge.
>
On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 12:17 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a
> new discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but
> there are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
>
On 22/11/18 06:50, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> He asked 'Why would anybody hardcode the link', what has this to do with
>> a shebang ?
>
>
> A shebang is an often used construct that would be broken were not a
> link in place.
False:
Using the shebang "#! /usr/bin/env will work provide the
>
> Maintaining the option of choosing between the two is what Devuan is
> trying to do, knowing that it might become harder to support it as
> time passes. My guess is that there is no real reason for the basic
> system (the stuff needed at boot time before you get to the point
> where other
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> >>
> >>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
> >> For values of
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:04:01PM +, Rowland Penny wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > > Did you read the debian bugreport ?
> >
> >
> > Yes, I did.
> >
> > Now you, how would you have a #!/bin/Rscript script work without a
> > filesystem-level link?
> >
> >
>
> I repeat, the problem in the
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:50:42 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 18:39, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:25:02 +0100
> > Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote:
> Of course we are, why don't you read before replying?
> >>> I can't be
On 21/11/18 at 18:49, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Alessandro:
>> On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>>> Alessandro:
On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Hendrik:
> ...
>> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
>> perhaps have
On 21/11/2018 16:24, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> So, you agree then that:
I agree from your point of view for your single specific use case.
Generally I totally disagree, I manage a diskless cluster that depends
on NFS mounted /usr.
It doesn't matter to the cluster nodes that the package
On 21/11/18 at 18:39, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:25:02 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote:
Of course we are, why don't you read before replying?
>>> I can't be sure if you are in jest.
>>
>> Of course I am not.
>>
>> Dr. Nikolaus
Alessandro:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Alessandro:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> >>> Hendrik:
> >>> ...
> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> >>> /boot is a viable
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:29:59 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 18:21, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:05:44 +0100
> > Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/18 at 17:57, Rowland Penny wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
> >>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:15:59PM +0300, m712 wrote:
[cut]
> >>>
> >>> #!/bin/sed
> >>>
> >>> , which is the norm, see:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/uuner/sedtris/blob/master/sedtris.sed
> >>>
> >>> , then you'd be in trouble if sed moved in /usr/bin.
> >> Well it would if you were trying to
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> >>
> >>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
> >> For values of
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:25:02 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote:
> >> Of course we are, why don't you read before replying?
> > I can't be sure if you are in jest.
>
>
> Of course I am not.
>
> Dr. Nikolaus Klepp asked:
>
>
> From: "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp"
On 21/11/18 at 18:21, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:05:44 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/18 at 17:57, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
>>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>>
On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov
On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote:
>> Of course we are, why don't you read before replying?
> I can't be sure if you are in jest.
Of course I am not.
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp asked:
From: "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp"
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:22:00 +0100
Message-Id:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:05:44 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:57, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
> > Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
> >>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
Roger Leigh - 21.11.18, 13:17:
> Lastly, regarding the comments about Devuan "disenfranchising" itself
> from Debian to not be "in the back seat". I take the point, but the
> practical reality is that Debian is so huge not even a company with
> many dozens of employees like Canonical could
On November 21, 2018 8:05:44 PM GMT+03:00, Alessandro Selli
wrote:
>On 21/11/18 at 17:57, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
Alessandro Selli
On 21/11/18 at 17:57, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
>>> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>>
On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Am Mittwoch,
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
> > Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> >>> Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> >>
>
On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Alessandro:
>> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>>> Hendrik:
>>> ...
Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
>>> /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
>>
>>
On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
I read the discussion at
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> you could have noticed that in essence Roger pointed to the merged-usr
> solution as not only impractical, but also risky and of doubtful
> usefulness.
Noted without comment:
Modern disk sizes make partitioning a separate /usr
unnecessary and
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> I read the discussion at
> >>
Alessandro:
> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Hendrik:
> > ...
> >> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> >> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> > /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
>
>
> No, it is not. An initramfs is needed to
On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
[...]
>> I read the discussion at
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1642443.html
>> and it looks as if they fixed the discrepancy at version 3.5.1-2.
>>
On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
>>
>>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
>> For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
>> been discussed, but
Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:19:03PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
> >
> > just for your amusement ...
> >
> >
> > Forwarded Message
> > Subject: Our build system may be broken: /bin vs /usr/bin
> >
On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest.
No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
all the points that were expressed against the merge.
> It's certainly not a new discussion, since I remember
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
>
> > I've been following the discussion with interest.
>
> For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
> been discussed, but then ignoring its substance.
>
Dear
Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> I've been following the discussion with interest.
For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
been discussed, but then ignoring its substance.
OK, great. Have an enjoyable day.
On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Hendrik:
> ...
>> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
>> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
No, it is not. An initramfs is needed to perform actions that must be
done
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:17:21PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a new
> discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but there
> are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:19:03PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
>
> just for your amusement ...
>
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: Our build system may be broken: /bin vs /usr/bin
> Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:01:46 + (UTC)
> Resent-From:
Hendrik:
...
> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
/boot is a viable initrd replacement. The downside is that there is
only one /boot, where you can have one initrd per kernel. But that
could be solved by some script.
I
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:17:21PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system
>
>Historically, /usr was separately mountable, shareable over NFS. With a
> package manager like dpkg, / and /usr are an integrated, managed whole.
>
Roger Leigh:
...
> 1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system
...
Please stop, and please respect the whish of the users who wants a
separate /usr, regardless if they are total idiots or seasoned admins.
If you want a merged /usr, you can have it, but don't push it
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:47:09PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 18/11/2018 à 01:21, Miroslav Skoric a écrit :
> > On 11/17/18 3:18 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The advantage of separating /usr is it can be mounted after
> > > boot. /bin and /sbin (and /lib)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:29:53AM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
>
> *Everything* currently in /usr should instead be in /.
Things that are essential for system startup, and for system diagnosis
and recovery (in case it doesnt start properly) should be in the root
partition, whatever it is called.
Hi folks,
I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a
new discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but
there are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
remember from back then.
Some general points to consider:
1) A
Hi Stephan,
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Sa, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:14:06 +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>>About that not looking all bad, perhaps the merge should be in the other
>>direction, from /usr to / rather than from / to /usr. Or can we expect
>
> No, if you want to merge something,
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:13:24 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121101324.gb4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > ..yeah, and I really asked about RAID0, the top entry in both:
> > https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#raid-0 or:
> >
Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
> ..yeah, and I really asked about RAID0, the top entry in both:
> https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#raid-0 or:
> https://www.stellarinfo.co.in/blog/advantages-and-disadvantages-popular-raid-systems/
>
> ..14 year old performance numbers:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:12:22 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121091222.ga4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > > In any event, I gather that there are tradeoffs.
> > >
Who left the barn door open?
--
Alessandro Selli
VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key:
BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dng
Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
> > In any event, I gather that there are tradeoffs.
> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/15052/what-are-the-advantages-of-swap-on-a-raid-1-mirror-device
> > https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5898
>
> ..hum, looks like you read my question on
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:52:19 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121075219.gz4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > ..is/was these 2 separate swap spaces faster stand-alone than put
> > together in a RAID0?
>
> I'm not sure. Adding the additional complication
58 matches
Mail list logo
