On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:52:50PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Yes, all mounts from fstab, including NFS mounts, are done in
> single user mode. But you should only put essential,static mounts in
> /etc/fstab (say, /usr or so). For the rest you should use automount.
The NFS volumes sho
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to a
> minimal system, or a standardized way to start everything bug *dm/X.
I do not think that X should be anything special. Yes, there is the case
when you have
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> "Single-user" mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
> of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
>
> -network
> -all disks (including NFS) mounted
Well, I have no strong feelings
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:41:01PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I believe nss modules are even dlopened in a static libc. There is no
> way to link them in static.
I believe Henrique didn't mean the NSS modules being static, just
linking all dependant libraries statically into the NSS mod
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:07:09AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 2. any dynamic libraries needed are in /lib, and *all* of them use
> versioned symbols
Look at the earlier discussions about libnss-ldap. You'd quickly find
half of /usr/lib being moved to /lib. I do not think
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:06:38PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> This is nice, but I think it's not really very autoconfish [tm] in
> spirit.
It is not meant to be autoconfish. It is meant to be run _before_
configure, so you can decide if you have to re-libtoolize the package or
not.
> Also, t
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:57:29AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'd think we could come up with a way to detect the version of libtool
> in use, somehow. :)
LTMAIN_SH_PATH=`autoconf --trace='AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR:$1'`
LTMAIN_SH_PATH="${LTMAIN_SH_PATH:-.}"
grep ^VERSION "$LTMAIN_SH_PATH"/ltmain.sh |
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 07:05:34AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> We've had that discussion before. Last I recall there wasn't really a
> huge fight to keep them.
Well, Debian developers do not really need them. But there are people
who do not develop Debian but develop other software _using_ Deb
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:38:17AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Why is this better? I have to change my perfectly normal, standard Unix
> link command to use something that completely hides the actual link
> command and makes debugging problems nearly impossible?
Exercise: let's say I have an
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:12:10PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nothing garanties that cron jobs are run at the right time. Running
> it a bit later (whenever you boot) is just like it being delayed due
> to excess load. If there are things that shouldn't be run at the wrong
> time we sho
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:28:22AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> Christ, not another one. Is there any sort of automated way that we can
> check for these sorts of libraries before messing things up again?
Theoretically libraries should export only the symbols of their public
API, and such a chec
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:40:10PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Many shell apps/scripts output data in tables, for example ls -l, ps
> aux, top, netstat, etc.
> At the moment, most of these apps use fixed-width columns with a
> variable-width last-column.
> This results in (unnecessary
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a
> package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner
If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed
way of relocating a pack
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
/boot.)
Well, grub _does_ access the filesyste
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> > problems for /boot.
>
> Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
> > - a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
> > broken system mo
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I'm moving all my packages to use it. It's not only a workaround for
> libtool or pkgconfig bugs, it's also a great tool when some upstream
> authors gratuitously adds unneeded -l flags.
General note: you have to be careful with
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:01:27AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> And since these are (always?) dependencies on shared objects,
> these libraries never get used, except to say, "Here I am!",
> right?
The runtime linker still loads them, which can be expensive (esp.
if there are many relocation recor
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:54:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Correct. So, why not use mv?
Add a new "--move" flag to dh_installfiles, come up with some exact
numbers showing the build time/disk usage savings for your favorite Big
Package (hard numbers usually very helpful for promoting new fea
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:14:00PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Anyway, I thought you were joking in your first message, but it looks like
> you're serious, so I'll answer this time. If you're copying between files on
> the same device, mv will use the rename(2) system call, which is an ato
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I do believe that the right thing is to be disabled by default.
> No.
Well, I've just checked and
mount --move /dev /temp-mount-point
mount --bind /dev /where-you-want-it
mount --move /temp-mount-point /dev
works on a live system
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:21:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Every machine with more than one interface has at least two hostnames:
> localhost on network 127 and something else on the external networks.
Nitpicking: every machine have exactly one hostname, that is contained
in /proc/sys/kernel/
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:08:16AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > "Remove /.dev/" does not mean "rm -rf it".
>
> What does it mean instead?
It's what politicians do: quote something out-of-context and pretend it
means something entirely different than in the original context :-)
/etc/init.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:46:03PM +0100, Olaf Conradi wrote:
> I've always found the existence of ./dev a bit weird in a directory
> listing of /.
> I'd rather have it in /var/lib/dev, but maybe that's just me ;)
... which would mean that it would become unaccessible (and thus
meaningless) as th
23 matches
Mail list logo
