On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:38:44AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
Exactly,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
That's the point, we want a reasonably small package while still
providing the required functionality. Not sure how providing a fixed
size number is helping
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any data
backing up necessity on any of this at all though. Right now it seems
to be sitting in the nice to have category.
For the record, it is _literally_ sitting in
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any data
backing up necessity on any of this at all though. Right now it seems
to be sitting in the
Am 06.03.2014 18:04, schrieb Don Zickus:
Maybe impose only xfs as the fs of choice or some other restrictions and
chop it further, but then we lose flexibility
hopefully a joke :-)
* i use a ton of virtual Fedora instances
* any of them is using ext4
* some may benefit from XFS but not that
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Right. When I said I had kernel-core and kernel-drivers, I wasn't
being theoretical. I already did the work in the spec file to split
it into
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:10:46PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
include it in my kernel numbers for that reason.
Currently, this is required by the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:10:46PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
That brings up a question though, how often would cloud expect to do a
yum update of individual packages as opposed to just updating the
entire image? If we expect the 3 kernel magic to work there, then
Unless we jump into Colin's
...
After a few dozen tests with the vanilla commits, and with the same
amount of rawhide kernels ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=871694
Dan, Francois you are both welcome with comments!
Thanks.
poma
___
kernel mailing list
On 11.01.2014 09:34, poma wrote:
On 10.01.2014 08:57, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 04:45 +0100, poma wrote:
3.13.0-0.rc7.git2.2.fc21.x86_64:
depmod: ERROR: Module 'hci_vhci' has devname (vhci) but lacks major and
minor information. Ignoring.
Also reported a week ago at (only?)
13 matches
Mail list logo
