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
one I use
Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 13:42:17
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org 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
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 (or,
Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 14:06:12
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org 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.
-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
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 providing the
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 can take 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-fuse seems to work fine for me.
--
Thanks,
Zac
Dnia 2013-07-21, o godz. 11:00:46
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org 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?),
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 like
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 page
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
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 portage
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 be to
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 to
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 I
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, loop
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 partition
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
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
tetrom...@gentoo.org
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs
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 doesn't
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 that
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org 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
On 28 March 2012 20:16, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org 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
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, right.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu 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
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu 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
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, right.
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 11:37 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu 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
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org 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
Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org 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
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 -pvuDN
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org 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
-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, 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 that
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org
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
-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
tetrom...@gentoo.org
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
decide on *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user
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
tetrom...@gentoo.org
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
decide on *before*
-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
tetrom...@gentoo.org
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
decide on
-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)
It
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org
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
On 28 March 2012 07:53, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org 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,
On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:20:45AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org 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
-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 (take a bit
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,
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/portage.
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/portage
On 28 March 2012 08:57, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu 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
49 matches
Mail list logo
