I switched from mkinitrd to dracut on all systems using lvm in order to
prevent these very issues
actually in mandriva i pushed for migrating to dracut
i would suggest doing the same thing with mageia
On 19/10/11 16:00, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> On 19 October 2011 15:20, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> In
On 10/21/2011 1:28 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Luca Berra at 20/10/11 19:55 did gyre and gimble:
>> I switched from mkinitrd to dracut on all systems using lvm in order to
>> prevent these very issues
>> actually in mandriva i pushed for migrating to
rs, let alone a piece of software.
i'll spend more time on doing qa on packages pushed to released distros.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
if those options are
chosen.
man page is wrong,
--repackage has been dropped from urpmi since it has been dropped from
rpm 4.6
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
roblem why i believe rollbacks are not that easy
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 01:16:09PM +, Dick Gevers wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:28:44 +0200, Luca Berra wrote about Re: [Mageia-dev]
Proposal: Updating released versions (long post):
--repackage has been dropped from urpmi since it has been dropped from
rpm 4.6
Will you post it in Mdv
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 06:48:40PM +, Dick Gevers wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:42:25 +0200, Luca Berra wrote about Re: [Mageia-dev]
Proposal: Updating released versions (long post):
--repackage has been dropped from urpmi since it has been dropped from
rpm 4.6
Will you post it in Mdv
owed: Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, Opensuse, Ubuntu
This should probably be 'no'.
I'd say yes, in europe it should fall under the interoperability case.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
ing a snapshot
makes users loose a whole day of work.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
ugzilla when they find bugs or
actually doing packaging work. Ignoring the will of such users will,
sooner or later, force mageia to employ paid personnel to do packaging
work.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
short explanation:
I maintain some package that has multiple spec and initscript hacks to
allow upgrading since 2005LE to current cooker (i.e. postfix). I really
believe it is too far and that some should be pruned.
The question is, how long should we maintain suck
hacks in packages?
--
Luca
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:41:31AM -0500, Fernando Parra wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:56:06 +0200
Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:00:14PM -0500, Fernando Parra wrote:
>The basic/novice user doesn't read anything,
remove basic/novice from the sentence and i will agree ;
} < 200610
927 root bzcat %{SOURCE6} > bacula.pam
927 root %else
927 root bzcat %{SOURCE7} > bacula.pam
927 root %endif
i think this could go.
(btw, bacula from 2010.1 builds correctly on 2006.0 if you disable the
qt gui components)
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
intai...@packages.mageia.org when noone
is subscribed to a package.
Regards,
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 07:44:19PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 25 octobre 2010 à 19:29 +0200, Luca Berra a écrit :
this would result that in case a ticket is opened in bugzilla vs
package, all interested parties would be notified, and start working on
a solution. (this might require
at using this kind of software is a
way to express personal freedom without really committing any _wrong_.
I would really hate if a free software distribution fell in the trap of
supporting the idea that software patents are _right_.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
d
in non-free, software with a non-free license and no permission to
distribute should not be distributed. But this is a very different issue
from free-software possibly breaking some patent. Please do not mix the
two issues.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
ining the same package)?
i think explicit
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
. this is the exact opposite of catching a thief.
It is the patent holder that has to prove the property was his before
claiming damage.
L.
P.S. I do not like the word 'tainted' for this kind of repository
because it just encourages parallels with theft like Ernest is making
here.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:23:00PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
sorry, but I can try to answer questions.
do you ever sleep? :P
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:01:19PM +0100, Anne Nicolas wrote:
sorry, i am still getting
"Invalid login/password, are you sure you can participate to this poll
?"
TIA,
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
y and confusion, please just drop this.
"Name: foo"
appers to be working
in rpm 4.6 "Version: foo" is totally borked, dunno with rpm 5
this is why i will continue on using macros for version and release.
%define myver 1.0
%define myrel %mkrel 1
Name: foo
Version: %myver
Releas
ndeed since I've used "Version: 1.0" for 12 years...
take at lvm2 srpm
and try to use %version anywhere in the spec,
you will be surprised by the result.
btw i believe Name to be buggy as well, but there is no use in having
two "Name:" tags in a single spec, so it will nev
initrd?
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it
24 matches
Mail list logo
