On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
> /user feature that I think you would benefit from reading it.
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
>
> If you have read it, then I fear yo
On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
would we care now?
I feel mildly insulted by that argument.
Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick
Morning people,
Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
going forward.
I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16 shortly. I have
been using yum to upgrade 2 of them since Fedora Cor
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM, John Ellson wrote:
> Another issue is that I have:
>
> /bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libc.so.6: cannot open
> shared object file: No such file or directory
> [ 1.796642] Kernel panic - not syncing: attempted to kill init!
>
> when trying t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/2012 09:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 16:36 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 04:13 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> Roland Grunberg wrote:
>>>
I noticed that libselinux was just updated to have ldconfig
On 28/01/12 12:30, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
Ok the problem with that is people like me run in rawhide all the time
to try to prevent other people seeing SELinux Hickups. So the sooner
I see major changes the better. Do we have a yum repository I could
point at to switch my machine to the new usr
On 01/27/2012 10:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please leave
us in peace!
Good luck! ^^
Kevin Kofler
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
On Fri, 27.01.12 22:40, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > people targetting FHS compliant systems (unless the FHS changes)
>
> That's the biggest flaw of this "feature": It violates the FHS!
You know, not even its former editor seems to to believe that (or
On Sat, 28.01.12 11:29, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >
> >[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
> >that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
> >would we care now?
>
> >I feel mi
On 01/28/2012 06:48 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM, John Ellson wrote:
Another issue is that I have:
/bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libc.so.6: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory
[1.796642] Kernel panic - not syncing: att
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 11:27 +, phantomjinx wrote:
> Morning people,
>
> Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
> the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
> going forward.
>
> I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 07:30 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 09:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 16:36 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >> On 01/27/2012 04:13 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>> Roland Grunberg wrote:
> >>>
> I noticed that libselinux was just updated
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
>
> Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get
tired of reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "Would you rather he was
excellent to you and lie
On 01/28/2012 10:35 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get tired of
reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "W
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
...snip...
> Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
> value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
> developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism
> of the idea.
>
> If you
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
> I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
> Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
> offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
> with
> "just go away".
>
> There is a difference bet
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:15:11AM -0600, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
> value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
> feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
>
> If you "can't
On 01/28/2012 11:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
...snip...
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not vali
On 01/28/2012 10:59 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
with
"ju
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:41:47AM -0600, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 10:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please
> >leave us in peace!
> >Good luck! ^^
> >
> > Kevin Kofler
> >
>
> Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Just a
2012/1/28 Ralf Corsepius :
>
> Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick Windows?
> No /usr, no /bin => /redhat. Seems to be the spirit behind all this.
>
> Ralf
>
The rhetoric spoils the argument. Various people inside of Red Hat are
either for this, against this, wanting to see where th
On 01/27/2012 05:57 PM, John Ellson wrote:
On 01/27/2012 08:10 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Hello Testers and rawhide Users,
Fedora 17 will locate the entire base operating system in /usr. The
directories
/bin, /sbin, /lib, /lib64 will only be symlinks:
/bin → /usr/bin
/sbin → /usr/sbin
/lib
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:02:50 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote:
> > The bugzilla account called "Bug Zapper" is a human-being not a script?
> > Unbelievable.
>
> We run a search to identify the bugs to be closed (it's a stored search
> in Bugzilla), manually weed the list, and then send the list to
> engine
On 2012-01-27 5:10, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Any files with conflicting names, which the conversion could not resolve, will
be backed up to files named *.usrmove~ residing in /usr/lib, /usr/lib64,
/usr/bin and /usr/sbin.
To which file does the conversion script append this suffix when it
resolves a
On 01/28/2012 05:40 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
> and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
> weigh in.
>
> First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
> certain that it's possibl
On 01/28/2012 12:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
> Andrew Wyatt wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
...
>
> I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
>
> Until those interested can organize
- "Genes MailLists" wrote:
>
> Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
> core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the
> RH
> business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
> setting, this is quite likely not to go too
On 01/28/2012 04:26 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
Gene, forgive me while I go off on a slight tangent forking the thread.
I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already be a
document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be found because
since the day mediaw
Fuduntu Dev here.
I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
I'm going to talk about is the feasibility and the logistics.
Fuduntu did
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Oops, I thought we could build packages now. I also built an updated
> policycoreutils...
And why didn't you untag the darn package? All our daily live image builds
failed today because of this!
I moved your build to the f17-usrmove tag where it belongs. (Any packager
c
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> You know, not even its former editor seems to to believe that (or that
> it was a problem), judging by the message this sarcastic posting of his
> sends:
>
> http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=236
>
> ;-)
Hey, my arguments are not the 2 "anti" arguments he quotes. ;-)
I have
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
> Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
> offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response with
> "just go away".
After seeing you boast about how "at Fudun
I thought you didn't speak for the community. I'm sorry if forking hurt your
feelings, but there really were only two options. Go forward and rework
everything for 15 or 16, or fork. Fedora 14 was EOS, remember?
Besides, you have no right and no business telling me where I am or am not
welcome.
On 01/29/2012 04:53 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>
> Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
> core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
> business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
> setting, this is quite like
On 01/29/2012 06:12 AM, Noah Hall wrote:
> Fuduntu Dev here.
>
> I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
> great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
> Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
> I'm going to talk abo
On 01/28/2012 07:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> It may, however, be worth doing something with the naming of TCs / RCs,
> as has been proposed in the past, because they do seem to confuse
> people.
Every TC and RC announcement should have a brief blurb on who it is
targeting and whats the exa
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 11:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 07:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >
> > It may, however, be worth doing something with the naming of TCs / RCs,
> > as has been proposed in the past, because they do seem to confuse
> > people.
>
> Every TC and RC announ
37 matches
Mail list logo
