Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 11:00:46
Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 07/21/2013 04:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > a) unionfs-fuse doesn't support replacing files from read-only branch,
>
> Maybe you've got some kind of configuration problem (did you forget to
> enable the cow option?), because unionfs-
On 07/21/2013 04:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> a) unionfs-fuse doesn't support replacing files from read-only branch,
Maybe you've got some kind of configuration problem (did you forget to
enable the cow option?), because unionfs-fuse seems to work fine for me.
--
Thanks,
Zac
El dom, 21-07-2013 a las 16:46 +0200, justin escribió:
> On 7/21/13 4:26 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> > On 07/21/2013 01:42 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> Would be possible to generate and provide squashed files at the
> >> same time tarballs with portage tree snapshots are generated?
> >> mksquashfs ca
On 7/21/13 4:26 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 01:42 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Would be possible to generate and provide squashed files at the
>> same time tarballs with portage tree snapshots are generated?
>> mksquashfs can take a lot of resources depending on the machine,
>> but provid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/21/2013 01:42 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Would be possible to generate and provide squashed files at the
> same time tarballs with portage tree snapshots are generated?
> mksquashfs can take a lot of resources depending on the machine,
> but prov
Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 14:06:12
Pacho Ramos napisał(a):
> El dom, 21-07-2013 a las 13:57 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> [...]
> > 5. I have doubts about 'emerge -1vDtu @world' speed. It is very
> > subjective feeling but I feel like reiserfs was actually faster in this
> > regard. However, spa
El dom, 21-07-2013 a las 13:57 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> 5. I have doubts about 'emerge -1vDtu @world' speed. It is very
> subjective feeling but I feel like reiserfs was actually faster in this
> regard. However, space savings would surely benefit our users.
>
I also feel it faster (
Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 13:42:17
Pacho Ramos napisał(a):
> El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 17:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> > On 03/31/2012 04:25 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> > >> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >>> About th
El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 17:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 03/31/2012 04:25 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> >> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
> >>>
El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 19:25 -0400, Walter Dnes escribió:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> > On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
> > > one I use and I know, about other alternatives
On 03/31/2012 04:25 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
>> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
>>> one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
> > one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs, loop
> > mount... I cannot promise anything as
On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
> one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs, loop
> mount... I cannot promise anything as I simply don't know how to set
> them.
Squashfs is really simple
El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 02:35 -0700, Brian Harring escribió:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
> > > maybe the option would
El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 08:44 +, Sven Vermeulen escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
> > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining
> > the cons of having p
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
> > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining
> > the cons of having
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
> maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining
> the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a
> link to a wiki p
El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 16:05 -0400, Alec Moskvin escribió:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:34:03, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > I am a bit surprised handbook still d
El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 14:53 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> >
> >> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
> >> de
El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 14:34 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > > separate partition for
Will start to reply but will take some time as I don't have much this
days :(
El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen escribió:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > separate partit
Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
>> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
>> first Gentoo systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of
>> f
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
> first Gentoo systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of
> fragmentation, much slower "emerge
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 11:37 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>
On 03/28/2012 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Yeah
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are hi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are hi
On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Yeah, r
On 28 March 2012 20:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only
possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Ye
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
> since everyone has an SSD now.
>
Yeah, right. Since I must be the only one out there th
On 28 March 2012 08:57, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Could we amend this to also include the benefits of ZFS and why you
> would want to use XFS or reiserfs instead of ext{2,3,4} as your
> filesystem in situations where ZFS is not yet appropriate (e.g. using it
> on Gentoo stable)? We could also include
On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:34:03, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > > separate partition for /usr/p
On 03/27/12 14:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
> *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
> installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
> advantages of a separate /usr/porta
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:29:34PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Why not just the separate "quick install" guide like we have that lists
> steps and the handbook if yu want more details?
We came from that. It means we need to start managing "just the commands"
for each architecture. After a while,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 03:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 03:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
>>> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in
>>> Section 4, we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage
>>> partition in it
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:20:45AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> >> Then again, Gentoo is about choice. It just seems like we're
> >> presenting users with more choices than makes sense for a newbie. If
> >> there is a choice between something that
On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> Then again, Gentoo is about choice. It just seems like we're
>> presenting users with more choices than makes sense for a newbie. If
>> there is a choice between something that 99.99% of users will want,
>> and some ancient piece of cruft that sti
On 28 March 2012 07:53, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in Section 4,
> we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage partition in it
> (take a bit of space away from /home, or something)
>
> It doesn't recommend/require anything, but when us
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> > 1. ext4, not ext3, needs to be recommended as the default filesystem. We
> > have kernel 3.2 marked stable, there is no need to keep talking about
> > ext4 as if it's something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 03:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
>> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in
>> Section 4, we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage
>> partition in it (take a bit of space away from /home, or
>> something)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 02:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
>>
>>> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
>>> decide on *before* getting
Il 27/03/2012 20:53, Ian Stakenvicius ha scritto:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
decide on *before* getting Gentoo up an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
>
>> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
>> decide on *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user
>> had finished in
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
> *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
> installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
> advantages of a separate /u
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
> > systems had it inside / and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 02:01 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
>> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
>> first
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> separate partition for /usr/portage tree.
I don't know whether you've heard, but PackageKit (a hard dependency of
udev as of 185, to allow automatic installation of the
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
> systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, much
> slower "emerge -pvuD
Hello
I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, much
slower "emerge -pvuDN world" (I benchmarked it when I changed my
partitioning sche
50 matches
Mail list logo
