Il 16/11/2018 alle 10:11, Daniel Reurich ha scritto:
> So... for Devuan, do we want to default to a merged /usr in our coming
> release of Beowulf
I vote NO: keep it as it is.
I've seen the merged /usr in Void Linux, hated it.
--
Dario Niedermann. Also on the Internet at:
Roger:
> On 29/11/2018 12:57, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
...
> > Why not agree on a certain set of programs/libs that should be in /bin,
> > /sbin, and /lib, just to not break my and others packages. That set
> > don't need to cover all booting possibilities.
>
> This is what we used to (try) to do,
Le 29/11/2018 à 22:10, Rick Moen a écrit :
Solution to this: Boot from Knoppix (yes, seriously) and manually create
the partitions with parted. Once this was done, rebooted from the RHEL
image. On the "Installation Destination" submenu I selected "I will
configure partitioning" and then clicked
On 29/11/18 at 18:19, Roger Leigh wrote:
> If you're a ZFS user
Yeah, that's it.
--
Alessandro Selli
VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key:
BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:40:52PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >
> > Compiling a kernel locally to include inline essential hardware drivers
> > is so simple I _think_ I could teach even a Republican Party voter how
> > to do it. ;->
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Compiling a kernel locally to include inline essential hardware drivers
> is so simple I _think_ I could teach even a Republican Party voter how
> to do it. ;->
>
> ITYM 'will probably never support without sysadmin manual work to
Quoting Stephan Seitz (stse+dev...@fsing.rootsland.net):
> On Do, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:22:05 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> >My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
> >the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
> >is fine with me. Do you have a
Quoting Alessandro Selli (alessandrose...@linux.com):
> I do not expect an OS that does not even let you chose on what disk to
> perform the install will let you choose a filesystem layout that is not
> the recommended one, that is LVM across all the available devices.
Yeah, and in agreement
On 2018-11-29 06:14, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:44:35AM -0600, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
On 2018-11-29 00:22, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
> the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
>
On 28/11/18 at 11:37, Didier Kryn wrote
:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 10:35, Rick Moen a écrit :
>> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
[...]
> Hi Rick.
>
> It seems to me you're fighting to get the last bit of performance
> out of mechanical hard drives, including by using different
>
On 28/11/18 at 12:11, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 11:25, Rick Moen a écrit :
>> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>>
>>> Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against
package
nfs-common, and also, meanwhile,
On 28/11/18 at 12:45, KatolaZ wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, most of this thread has been just about "oh look how
> cool MY setup is, oh I went around that, oh I tried this and that, oh
> I want to have /var on a tmpfs, oh I mount /usr over NFS and you
> should try it as well..." and so on and
On 28/11/18 at 12:36, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>
>> IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot is
>> a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:
> My view, which I expressed in detail prior to Roger joining the thread,
>
On 28/11/18 at 11:37, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 10:35, Rick Moen a écrit :
>> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>>
[...]
>>
> Hi Rick.
>
> It seems to me you're fighting to get the last bit of performance
> out of mechanical hard drives, including by using different
>
On 28/11/18 at 12:15, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> Why do you think ro, nodev, barrier, sync and other mount options do
> make sense on a RAID/LVM filesystem?
"... do NOT make sense ..."
--
Alessandro Selli
VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding
On 28/11/18 at 11:13, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
>> If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against
>> package
>> nfs-common, and also, meanwhile, compile a local-package substitute with
>> either static binaries or ones linked to libs in
On 28/11/18 at 08:11, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
>
>> # ldd /sbin/mount.nfs | grep "/usr"
>> libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2
>> (0x7f82f53ac000)
>> libkrb5.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3
>>
On 28/11/18 at 09:08, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Alessandro Selli (alessandrose...@linux.com):
>
>> Can you name me one distribution other than Red Hat (which in
>> fact is not a desktop-friendly distribution) that does not allow one to
>> "do their own partition setup"?
> I'm curious,
On 24/11/2018 15:08, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
Roger:
...
There's no clean separation between the "base" system and "everything else".
...
I think my urge to have a separate /usr is that I want such a
separation and there isn't a clear other place to have it.
Is there an underlying rationale
On 29/11/2018 13:44, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
Q: Isn't there some filesystem type that supports settings at a more
granular level than the device? Like directory or per file?
A: Eh ... Don't know. Haven't checked ...
Solution: Go fish!
# I haven't gone fishing yet but a vague recollection of
Le 28/11/2018 à 16:12, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
Instead, it
seems /lib has become a holly directory where only the libc and the
dynamic
linker are allowed to live.
I do *not* mean this sarcastically; I am confused.
Is "holly" a new
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 22:44:31 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Stephan Seitz writes:
>
> > Maintainers are encouraged to install everything in /usr because it
> > must be available in early boot.
>
> Call me dumb but I totally, completely and utterly fail to understand
> why "Maintainers are
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:24:01 +0100
Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Do, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:22:05 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> >My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer
> >whether the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no
> >merge. This is fine with me. Do you have a
Le 29/11/2018 à 14:44, Olaf Meeuwissen a écrit :
restrictions (think ro/nodev/nosuid) or tune performance (think
noatime).
You can mount / with nodev. Except if you absolutely want static
device files, /dev is now a mountpoint with device files managed either
by udev/eudev/vdev/mdev,
On 29/11/2018 12:57, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
Roger:
...
Note that to return to the pre-merge policies would be an exercise in
futility. It was already an exercise in futility back in 2011 because
the number of libraries which /could/ be moved to /lib is an unbounded
set. There's always
Hi Stephan,
# Disclaimer: / and /usr live on the same partition on my systems.
# Heads up: I just might change that ... back to what I used to do.
Stephan Seitz writes:
> Maintainers are encouraged to install everything in /usr because it must
> be available in early boot.
Call me dumb but I
Roger:
...
> Note that to return to the pre-merge policies would be an exercise in
> futility. It was already an exercise in futility back in 2011 because
> the number of libraries which /could/ be moved to /lib is an unbounded
> set. There's always another tool which /might/ be required,
On Do, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:22:05 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
is fine with me. Do you have a problem with it?
Nope, but even Devuan will probably never
On 29/11/2018 10:21, Arnt Karlsen wrote:> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:26:59
+, Roger wrote in message
<38625727-08b2-2816-85b0-8f57d6796...@codelibre.net>:
This isn't a bug, or even a feature. It's a deliberate design
decision which affects the functioning of the system as a whole. I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:44:35AM -0600, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-29 00:22, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
> > the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
> > is fine with me.
> >
>
> I
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:26:59 +, Roger wrote in message
<38625727-08b2-2816-85b0-8f57d6796...@codelibre.net>:
> On 28/11/2018 11:36, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> >
> >> IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early
> >> boot is a *bug*",
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:12:33PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:11:25 +0100
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>
> > IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early
> > boot is a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature*
> > (~:
>
> I can think of
On 11/29/2018 01:44 AM, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
On 2018-11-29 00:22, Steve Litt wrote:
My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
is fine with me.
I installed a test beowulf mini.iso a few
On 2018-11-29 00:22, Steve Litt wrote:
My understanding is that Devuan will ask in the fresh installer whether
the user wants to merge or not, with the default being no merge. This
is fine with me.
I installed a test beowulf mini.iso a few days ago and there was indeed
an option to merge.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:27:04 +0100
Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Mi, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early
> >boot is a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature*
> >(~:
>
> You can discuss if this
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:11:25 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early
> boot is a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature*
> (~:
I can think of very few cases where a disallowed usage is a feature.
Private and local
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:36:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >
> > (This is why I tend not to waste time hyperventilating about dumb distro
> > policy decisions: Submit a bug. If it's rejected or never acted on,
> > just make a local
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> > Instead, it
> > seems /lib has become a holly directory where only the libc and the dynamic
> > linker are allowed to live.
>
> I do *not* mean this sarcastically; I am confused.
On 28/11/2018 11:36, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot is
a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:
My view, which I expressed in detail prior to Roger joining the thread,
is that
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:45:25PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:25:20AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> >
> > > Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
> > > >If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against
> > >
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:36:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> (This is why I tend not to waste time hyperventilating about dumb distro
> policy decisions: Submit a bug. If it's rejected or never acted on,
> just make a local configuration that works around the stupid distro
> action, and move
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Instead, it
> seems /lib has become a holly directory where only the libc and the dynamic
> linker are allowed to live.
I do *not* mean this sarcastically; I am confused.
Is "holly" a new technical use of an existing English word?
Or
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:11:41PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
>
> > # ldd /sbin/mount.nfs | grep "/usr"
> > libgssapi_krb5.so.2 =>
> > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x7f82f53ac000)
> > libkrb5.so.3 =>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:00:40AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>
> > For what concerns, laptops, I think we are in the era of ssd
> > and, unfortunately, there is usually only one disk drive per laptop,
> > except of older ones where the cdrom drive can be
Quoting Stephan Seitz (stse+dev...@fsing.rootsland.net):
> You can discuss if this is a feature but the fact is that most
> distributions have given up supporting a separate /usr in later
> boot.
>
> So any bugreport against lvm2 or nfs-common will be closed because
> it is not a supported use
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> Yeah, on a personal level you can do that, and I totally agree. On a
> distribution level, and with the current number of active developers
> in Devuan, the way forward is that people with interest in the matter
> to roll their sleeves up and do something
On Mi, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot
is a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:
You can discuss if this is a feature but the fact is that most
distributions have given up
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> Unfortunately, most of this thread has been just about "oh look how
> cool MY setup is, oh I went around that, oh I tried this and that, oh
> I want to have /var on a tmpfs, oh I mount /usr over NFS and you
> should try it as well..." and so on and so
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:04:18AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
[cut]
>
> > and there is little we can do to avoid that...
>
> Um..., didn't I just describe what I'm likely to do to avoid that?
> I could swear I did.
>
Yeah, on a personal level you can do that, and I totally agree. On a
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> Great. This is your opinion. We got it.
Apologies if I annoyed. I restated that view only becaused Didier said
'IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot is
a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:', and
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:36:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>
> > IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot is
> > a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:
>
> My view, which I expressed in detail prior to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:11:25PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
[cut]
>
> It would certainly be possible to move all applications and dynamic
> libraries needed for early boot from the /usr tree to /bin, /sbin and /lib,
> but Debian has made a different choice. In the case of NFS, I agree that
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:25:20AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>
> > Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
> > >If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against package
> > >nfs-common, and also, meanwhile, compile a local-package
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early boot is
> a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:
My view, which I expressed in detail prior to Roger joining the thread,
is that it's vital to the most vital function
Le 28/11/2018 à 11:25, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against package
nfs-common, and also, meanwhile, compile a local-package substitute with
either static binaries
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> It seems to me you're fighting to get the last bit of performance out
> of mechanical hard drives, including by using different filesystems
> for different partitions, which makes a lot of sense for servers.
No, not any more. Those configuration details
Le 28/11/2018 à 10:35, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Files are stored in different directories, that's it for
clean bookkeeping. Making these directories mountpoint does not add
any sort of ordering. Only the impression they are more secure.
Here's a real-world
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
> >If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against package
> >nfs-common, and also, meanwhile, compile a local-package substitute with
> >either static binaries or ones linked to libs in /lib (and
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Files are stored in different directories, that's it for
> clean bookkeeping. Making these directories mountpoint does not add
> any sort of ordering. Only the impression they are more secure.
Here's a real-world example of ordering using filesystem
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> Roger has also explained that the rants about "not being able to boot
> with a separate /usr and without initramfs" are totally pointeless,
> since this has been the case in Debian and all the derivatives at
> least since Wheezy was testing (i.e., about 7
Quoting Alessandro Selli (alessandrose...@linux.com):
> Can you name me one distribution other than Red Hat (which in
> fact is not a desktop-friendly distribution) that does not allow one to
> "do their own partition setup"?
I'm curious, Alessandro: Is RHEL now completely hostile to custom
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> # ldd /sbin/mount.nfs | grep "/usr"
> libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2
> (0x7f82f53ac000)
> libkrb5.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3
> (0x7f82f52cf000)
> libk5crypto.so.3
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:21:01PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> It would be possible to share the ports tree on a FreeBSD system, since it's
> mostly self-contained, so long as it's read-only (it has unshared data in
> /var including the package database, so can't be read-write). But this is
>
Le 24/11/2018 à 13:13, Roger Leigh a écrit :
(Like many, I used to routinely use a separate /usr on a separate
partition, then LVM LV, until I really looked at the practice and
questioned the real underlying problems which it was solving. I've not
needed one in over a decade at this point.
Roger,
I appreciate you taking the time for the explanation of the flow of
logic driving the developments.
It adds some depth that the average user, like me is not normally
exposed to.
I remember doing installations with various partitions for directories,
as much for coolness as anything,
Roger:
...
> There's no clean separation between the "base" system and "everything else".
...
I think my urge to have a separate /usr is that I want such a
separation and there isn't a clear other place to have it.
> The other part of the scenario you mentioned here is "doesn't want to
> use
On 24/11/2018 02:45, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:17:21 +
Roger Leigh wrote:
Some general points to consider:
1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan
system
Historically, /usr was separately mountable, shareable over NFS.
With a package
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 09:45:50PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> What I hear in the preceding paragraph is that dpkg considers /
> and /usr a package deal (no pun intended), and so can't abide an NFS
> mounted /usr. Telling people to merge / and /usr for this reason is
> fixing the symptom
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:17:21 +
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 remember
On 23/11/18 at 18:26, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 09:03, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 23/11/18 at 14:32, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, are you doing the work for your setup you care so much?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I am. It's me who designs the filesystem layout when I chose
>>
On 23/11/18 at 18:10, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 07:32, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>>
>
> [trim]
>
>> Since Devuan and Debian are build by volunteers they will do what they
>> want to do. If no one is interested in keeping the choices they will
>> fade away. Will you step forward and work
On 23/11/18 at 23:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> So if you're insistent upon retaining a separate /usr, that shouldn't
> be a problem.
Tomorrow morning at 4:00 o'clock I'll wake everyone up ringing the
Church's bells to celebrate.
--
Alessandro Selli
VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net
Chiave firma
On 22/11/2018 18:21, Roger Leigh wrote:
Before I follow up on any of the points you (and others) made in
response, let me begin with some history you may be unaware of. It
actually predates systemd, and is largely unrelated to systemd.
I just rediscovered
Best Regards
--
Ismael
- Original Message -
From: "KatolaZ"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [DNG] /usr to merge or not to merge... that is the question
I would be more inclined towards leaving the dialog more or less as it
is but making it only available
Dear Roger.
Roger Leigh - 23.11.18, 18:01:
[…]
> On a personal note: I spent well over a decade working on different
> parts of Debian and loved being a part of it, and had many friends
> there. I left the Debian project after enduring over two years of
> abusive and disrespectful
On 2018-11-23 09:03, Alessandro Selli wrote:
On 23/11/18 at 14:32, Stephan Seitz wrote:
Again, are you doing the work for your setup you care so much?
Yes, I am. It's me who designs the filesystem layout when I chose
"Manual" in the install program menu.
It's me who reconfigures the
On 2018-11-23 07:32, Stephan Seitz wrote:
[trim]
Since Devuan and Debian are build by volunteers they will do what they
want to do. If no one is interested in keeping the choices they will
fade away. Will you step forward and work to keep the choices?
[trim]
Again, are you doing the
On 22/11/2018 22:24, Alessandro Selli wrote:
On 22/11/18 at 19:21, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 21/11/2018 16:11, 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
On 23/11/18 at 15:52, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 02:52:00PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> My rants were an answer to a (former) Debian maintainer/devloper who
>> was on this list justifying the necessity of Debian's / -> merge based
>> on the specific needs of
On 23/11/18 at 14:32, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Fr, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:09:17 +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> I do get the reasons the merge proponents prefer this filesystem
>> layout. What I rant against is their choices being imposed on me.
>
> They are not imposed on you. No one is going
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 02:52:00PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
[cut]
>
>
> My rants were an answer to a (former) Debian maintainer/devloper who
> was on this list justifying the necessity of Debian's / -> merge based
> on the specific needs of datacenters or his own personal tastes.
>
>
On 23/11/18 at 14:25, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:09:17PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>>> Devuan is currently used in a mutlitude of
>>> environments that include server farms, corporate and personal
>>> servers, embedded systems, personal devices, and desktops.
On Fr, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:09:17 +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
I do get the reasons the merge proponents prefer this filesystem
layout. What I rant against is their choices being imposed on me.
They are not imposed on you. No one is going to your desktop/server and
is changing your disc
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:09:17PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
[cut]
>
>
> > Devuan is currently used in a mutlitude of
> > environments that include server farms, corporate and personal
> > servers, embedded systems, personal devices, and desktops. So any
> > choice Devuan will make has
On 23/11/18 at 06:26, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:24:05PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 22/11/18 at 19:21, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2018 16:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the
Le 22/11/2018 à 21:55, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
On 22/11/18 at 16:25, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 22/11/2018 à 13:25, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
chown -R a-w /bin
chown -R a-w /sbin
chown -R a-w /lib
Sorry, I meant chmod.
Mounting read-only isn't more secure than marking a directory
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:24:05PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 22/11/18 at 19:21, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On 21/11/2018 16:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
> >>
> >>
> >>
On 22/11/18 at 22:31, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> barrier related mount options are deprecated, well even removed at least
> for XFS, deprecated in 4.10 and and removed in 4.19¹. Write barriers
> have been replaced by explicit cache flushes² (somewhere around 2.6.39…
> I am too lazy to look it
On 22/11/18 at 19:21, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 16:11, 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
On 2018-11-22 14:55, Alessandro Selli wrote:
On 22/11/18 at 16:25, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 22/11/2018 à 13:25, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
chown -R a-w /bin
chown -R a-w /sbin
chown -R a-w /lib
Sorry, I meant chmod.
Mounting read-only isn't more secure than marking a directory
[… personal attacks against Didier omitted …]
I recommend to go back to basic netiquette. Attacking others in person
is not going to help anyone, nor does it add to a friendly community
around Devuan.
Alessandro Selli - 22.11.18, 21:55:
> You are again blockheadedly ignoring the fact that
On 22/11/18 at 16:28, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 22/11/2018 à 13:42, terryc a écrit :
>> IME, absolutely nothing in real life works that way.
>> Do you dump all your clothes into one big bin or store them by say
>> type?
>
> Files are stored in different directories, that's it for clean
>
On 22/11/18 at 16:25, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 22/11/2018 à 13:25, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
>> chown -R a-w /bin
>> chown -R a-w /sbin
>> chown -R a-w /lib
>
> Sorry, I meant chmod.
>
> Mounting read-only isn't more secure than marking a directory
> read-only. root can change it anytime
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:21:01PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 16:11, 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
On 21/11/2018 16:11, 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.
Let me begin by
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:28:55PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 22/11/2018 à 13:42, terryc a écrit :
> > IME, absolutely nothing in real life works that way.
> > Do you dump all your clothes into one big bin or store them by say
> > type?
>
> Files are stored in different directories,
Le 22/11/2018 à 13:42, terryc a écrit :
IME, absolutely nothing in real life works that way.
Do you dump all your clothes into one big bin or store them by say
type?
Files are stored in different directories, that's it for clean
bookkeeping. Making these directories mountpoint does not
Le 22/11/2018 à 13:25, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
chown -R a-w /bin
chown -R a-w /sbin
chown -R a-w /lib
Sorry, I meant chmod.
Mounting read-only isn't more secure than marking a directory
read-only. root can change it anytime in a single command.
Didier
On 22/11/18 at 13:25, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> Wrong. Split / and /usr Unix systems have been around for decades and
> they have been upgradable. Your "solution" instead:
>
> chown -R a-w /bin
> chown -R a-w /sbin
> chown -R a-w /lib
>
>
> would make them not.
I am wrong here, as upgrades
On 22/11/18 at 13:42, terryc wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:10:20 +0100
> Didier Kryn wrote:
> But
>> the part of the OS (which is managed by dpkg) better stays on one
>> single partition.
> IME, absolutely nothing in real life works that way.
> Do you dump all your clothes into one big bin or
1 - 100 of 304 matches
Mail list logo
