Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and
not lilo and/or grub.
I said same think 2 years ago...
--
4:24am up 35 days, 15:35, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
O//
==-} - .--._.-^-(.}
)'/{ ( \d
./\, ) -._.-
/ / `\/' GNU -=LFS*1482=-
I am not 31337. But I can use the Vi editor... ;-0
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
--- tester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 : remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away... Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and not lilo and/or grub. Alexander Skwar Ummm, and economics rears its ugly head You see, if you do a --whatprovides query, you should get a unique answer in mdk. Otherwise it is a nightmare when a tarball changes--have to repackage all of them that provide it, and the distro gets _really_ bloated in terms of install CDs. So, this could be like the printer thing in DrakX that installs something if you need it when you configure a printer. Don't install LILO or grub during the package install, during the bootloader config, ask the user to pick a bootloader (in Recommended just use LILO and don't ask), and then install it. In fact I wrote a tarball sweeper to check that tar.bz2's are not duplicated with a few exceptions in the distro. (Like ALSA in several kernels). Did it pick up kernel-headers being in glibc? Now you people have to waste your time repackaging glibc every time you change the kernel. Also, now we can't recompile your glibc SRPM against our own kernel headers. __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
--- tester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ummm, and economics rears its ugly head You see, if you do a --whatprovides query, you should get a unique answer in mdk. Otherwise it is a nightmare when a tarball changes--have to repackage all of them that provide it, and the distro gets _really_ bloated in terms of install CDs. So, this could be like the printer thing in DrakX that installs something if you need it when you configure a printer. Don't install LILO or grub during the package install, during the bootloader config, ask the user to pick a bootloader (in Recommended just use LILO and don't ask), and then install it. In fact I wrote a tarball sweeper to check that tar.bz2's are not duplicated with a few exceptions in the distro. (Like ALSA in several kernels). Did it pick up kernel-headers being in glibc? Now you people have to waste your time repackaging glibc every time you change the kernel. Also, now we can't recompile your glibc SRPM against our own kernel headers. __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
Did it pick up kernel-headers being in glibc? Now you people have to waste your time repackaging glibc every time you change the kernel. Do you really know what you are talking about? Please, check archives where it was explained (multiple times). Kernel-headers has noting to do with kernel you are running. -andrej
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
According to the documentation that comes with the kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in /usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package forces us to waste disk space installing Mandrake's kernel-headers package when we might our own kernel source with their own headers we might want to compile glibc against. --- Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really know what you are talking about? Please, check archives where it was explained (multiple times). Kernel-headers has noting to do with kernel you are running. -andrej __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
According to the documentation that comes with the kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in /usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package forces us to waste disk space installing Mandrake's kernel-headers package when we might our own kernel source with their own headers we might want to compile glibc against. Of course, you may want to do whatever you wish. But how is it related to Mandrake?
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package, rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is an annoyance because it doesn't let your rebuild Mandrake's glibc SRPM against different kernel headers. For Mandrake (you complain about wasted time and limited money) it's bad because they have to rebuild glibc every time they update the kernel (at least if the update affects the headers) by regenerating the kernel-headers bzball and rebuilding the RPMs. It's a waste of time for them. It'd be better to go back to how it was before where the kernel SRPM makes the kernel-headers package, which would simplify things for you Mandrake packagers. --- Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to the documentation that comes with the kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in /usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package forces us to waste disk space installing Mandrake's kernel-headers package when we might our own kernel source with their own headers we might want to compile glibc against. Of course, you may want to do whatever you wish. But how is it related to Mandrake? __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package, rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is an annoyance because it doesn't let your rebuild Mandrake's glibc SRPM against different kernel headers. you should not compile glibc against kernel sources. For Mandrake (you complain about wasted time and limited money) it's bad because they have to rebuild glibc every time they update the kernel no. This sentence means you do not understand what you are talking about. Before replying, please, search archives. I already told you that it was discussed and explained more then once here. -andrej
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
--- Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you should not compile glibc against kernel sources. So I found the thread in the archives. I already knew that the version of the kernel-headers doesn't neccesarily match the version of the kernel. glibc is supposed to be compiled against a known working kernel, as you said. Well, say you have that. What, besides the fact that you may upgrade your sources later making things out of sync, is wrong with building glibc against your own kernel headers? Wrong as it may be, I've even done that and update the kernel sources many times w/out rebuilding glibc and never had any problems... no. This sentence means you do not understand what you are talking about. Before replying, please, search archives. I already told you that it was discussed and explained more then once here. Well, I see what you're doing with the package. I don't see what would be wrong with the glibc SRPM building against what's in /usr/include, which is probably Mandrake's kernel-headers anyway. It seems wasteful the way it's done. Not neccesarily quite as wasteful as I thought before, Mandrake doesn't neccesarily have to rebuild glibc every time they upgrade the kernel, so I grant you that. Here's another idea then. Have a seperate SRPM for kernel-headers (which I guess would produce a noarch RPM). __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
So sprach »Yura Gusev« am 2002-01-29 um 21:24:31 -0500 : No i dont see any logic in this statement. What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of any software, but I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), any software is not needed. So it should be removed. (or even better replace any software with software) Do you agree Alexander? Well, to some extent, yes, I agree. In a perfect world, only software which is actually needed should be installed. If I don't need a given software, why should it be installed? Another example of bloat: I use grub as my bootloader. This means I don't use lilo. But when I try to rpm -e lilo, I get an error message saying that lilo is required by basesystem. IIRC, there's some stuff in the lilo package which is also needed by grub. But anyhow, because I don't do --nodeps removes, I'm forced to have 2 bootloaders of which I only use 1. And maybe some users don't even need lilo when they are using this dos linux starter. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 15 days 10 hours 49 minutes
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another example of bloat: I use grub as my bootloader. This means I don't use lilo. But when I try to rpm -e lilo, I get an error message saying that lilo is required by basesystem. IIRC, there's some stuff in the lilo package which is also needed by grub. But anyhow, because I don't do --nodeps removes, I'm forced to have 2 bootloaders of which I only use 1. And maybe some users don't even need lilo when they are using this dos linux starter. remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away...
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 : remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away... Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and not lilo and/or grub. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 16 days 2 hours 43 minutes
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 : remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away... Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and not lilo and/or grub. Alexander Skwar Ummm, and economics rears its ugly head You see, if you do a --whatprovides query, you should get a unique answer in mdk. Otherwise it is a nightmare when a tarball changes--have to repackage all of them that provide it, and the distro gets _really_ bloated in terms of install CDs. In fact I wrote a tarball sweeper to check that tar.bz2's are not duplicated with a few exceptions in the distro. (Like ALSA in several kernels). Civileme
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:33:17AM +0100, Stefan Siegel wrote: Hello Reinhard Es schrieb Reinhard Katzmann: AFAIK xfs in meanwhile no longer needed with XFree 4.2, so why not simply remove it ? We had this discussion some time ago, but OK once again: We are running several Xterminals at our university which get their fonts by a Mandrake Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out there, but there are still lots of users ... Ok, then make it optional at least (and don't use it any longer with the default installation). It should be no problem to move some font directory definitions to the correct config file (gawk is nice, when adaptions need to be done). Regards, Reinhard -- Software-Engineer, Developer for Embedded Devices Project: Pertergrin, a role playing game system GnuPG Public Key available on request msg52697/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
Ok, then make it optional at least (and don't use it any longer with the default installation). It is easier for packages to modify just one file when adding font paths. If you remove xfs support every package with own fonts has to be modified. And you still have to modify xfs configuration for external clients :-) So why do the same job twice? -andrej
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 : Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out there, but there are still lots of users ... Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be better if these were modules. What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of XFS, but I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not needed. So it should be removed. That's actually the same reasoning why ide stuff and ext2 is in the kernel. So if this holds true for the kernel, it should also hold true for XFS. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 14 days 19 hours 4 minutes
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 : Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out there, but there are still lots of users ... for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not needed. So it should be removed. That's actually the same reasoning why ide stuff and ext2 is in the kernel. So if this holds true for the kernel, it should also hold true for XFS. I think you have confused XFS the journaling file system with XFS the X Windows Font Server. :) --- Stan Seibert
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 : Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out there, but there are still lots of users ... Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be better if these were modules. What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of XFS, but I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not needed. So it should be removed. That's actually the same reasoning why ide stuff and ext2 is in the kernel. So if this holds true for the kernel, it should also hold true for XFS. Alexander Skwar It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's just some unused bloat that with todays hardware prices isn't that hard to live with. If xfs get's removed it would hurt those who need it, but if it stays most ppl wont see it and those who does with see a small bloatness, that isn't very hard to live with. And with this I think keeping xfs is the same as keeping most other things (like the ide drivers), you'll keep the big userbase and only those that really really want a 100% optimized system will notice. Michael Andreen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
Hi! On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote: On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote: Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be better if these were modules. I guess you guys mixed up xfs (x file system) and xfs (X font server) ;-) It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's just some unused bloat that with todays hardware prices isn't that hard to live with. As we need to have initrd images (according to my experience, I could not get a kernel to run without initrd.img including a older 2.4.17 kernel) we could have ide as a module (but currently it won't work, I tested this with a self-compiled kernel but only got problems). If xfs get's removed it would hurt those who need it, but if it stays most ppl wont see it and those who does with see a small bloatness, that isn't very hard to live with. And with this I think keeping xfs is the same as keeping most other things (like the ide drivers), you'll keep the big userbase and only those that really really want a 100% optimized system will notice. XFS (like ext3, reiserfs) can be a module without any problems as it gets integrated into the initrd image if it's not in the kernel automatically using mkinitrd. It is even officially unsupported according to the mails I received (at least with ext3, I don't think it's any difference with xfs). Booting from ext3 fs with ext3 as a module works fine on all the systems I have tested. The general kernel should IMO be as much modularized as possible (my kernel is a bit beyond 700K while the 2.4.8 Mandrake kernel was above 1 MB!) Regards, Reinhard -- Software-Engineer, Developer for Embedded Devices Project: Pertergrin, a role playing game system GnuPG Public Key available on request msg52749/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 18.45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote: Hi! On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote: On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote: Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be better if these were modules. I guess you guys mixed up xfs (x file system) and xfs (X font server) ;-) It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's just some unused bloat that with todays hardware prices isn't that hard to live with. As we need to have initrd images (according to my experience, I could not get a kernel to run without initrd.img including a older 2.4.17 kernel) we could have ide as a module (but currently it won't work, I tested this with a self-compiled kernel but only got problems). If xfs get's removed it would hurt those who need it, but if it stays most ppl wont see it and those who does with see a small bloatness, that isn't very hard to live with. And with this I think keeping xfs is the same as keeping most other things (like the ide drivers), you'll keep the big userbase and only those that really really want a 100% optimized system will notice. XFS (like ext3, reiserfs) can be a module without any problems as it gets integrated into the initrd image if it's not in the kernel automatically using mkinitrd. It is even officially unsupported according to the mails I received (at least with ext3, I don't think it's any difference with xfs). Booting from ext3 fs with ext3 as a module works fine on all the systems I have tested. The general kernel should IMO be as much modularized as possible (my kernel is a bit beyond 700K while the 2.4.8 Mandrake kernel was above 1 MB!) Regards, Reinhard I know that we where talking about the x font server all the time, even though my point would be as valid IMHO if we where talking about the filesystem, and that it's better to ship things as modularized as possible. I was never trying to argue that we should compile everything into the kernel. Yes, in the mail I was responding to he complained about the fact that it was compiled into the kernel. I realize that it was bad for me to take it as example, but what I wanted to point out was that it's better to include stuff (in the distribution, not compiled into the kernel ;), like xfs, into the distribution compared to leaving them, since including them doesn't really hurt anyone except minimalists (who only want the stuff that is really needed and specialized for there system). If mandrake (and all other distributions) had chosen to install just the things that are really needed, ppl who wants other features would have to either heavily modify the distributions or starting to build there own which would destroy the whole point in distributions. If distributions are shiped with th emost generic tools (wth lots of, partly, bloated features), like xfs, it's more usable for a wider range of ppl, even though it should be as easy as possible to remove the bloatness and replace things with more specialized things. Hope this cleared up what I was trying to point out ;) Michael Andreen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 : Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out there, but there are still lots of users ... Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be better if these were modules. What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of XFS, but I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not needed. So it should be removed. Absolutely right, Alexander. That's actually the same reasoning why ide stuff and ext2 is in the kernel. So if this holds true for the kernel, it should also hold true for XFS. Alexander Skwar -- Peter Ruskin, Wrexham, Wales. AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512MB RAM. Registered Linux User 219434. Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Vitamin) Kernel 2.4.8-34.1mdk-win4lin, XFree86 4.1.0, patch level 21mdk. KDE: 2.2.2. Qt: 2.3.2. Up 2 hours 15 minutes.
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Peter Ruskin wrote:
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone
out there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I
don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still
these drivers are compiled into the kernel. For *me* it would be
better if these were modules.
What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of XFS, but I'd say
for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not
needed. So it should be removed.
Absolutely right, Alexander.
No i dont see any logic in this statement.
What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of any software, but
I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), any software
is not needed. So it should be removed.
(or even better replace any software with software)
Do you agree Alexander?
--
9:21pm up 34 days, 8:32, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
O//
==-} - .--._.-^-(.}
)'/{ ( \d
./\, ) -._.-
/ / `\/' GNU -=LFS*1482=-
I am not 31337. But I can use the Vi editor... ;-0
Re: [Cooker] XFS is needet! [Was: AbiWord]
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 12:45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote: I guess you guys mixed up xfs (x file system) and xfs (X font server) ;-) i hate when people do this. ...eh. It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's just some unused bloat that with todays hardware prices isn't that hard to live with. As we need to have initrd images (according to my experience, I could not get a kernel to run without initrd.img including a older 2.4.17 kernel) we could have ide as a module (but currently it won't work, I tested this with a self-compiled kernel but only got problems). If xfs get's removed it would hurt those who need it, but if it stays most ppl wont see it and those who does with see a small bloatness, that isn't very hard to live with. And with this I think keeping xfs is the same as keeping most other things (like the ide drivers), you'll keep the big userbase and only those that really really want a 100% optimized system will notice. XFS (like ext3, reiserfs) can be a module without any problems as it gets integrated into the initrd image if it's not in the kernel automatically using mkinitrd. ditto. i think XFS is as module in my currently installed cooker kernel and it appears to work just fine. matter of fact, since kernels 2.4.8, there's been a huge rise in stability performance. probabely becuase of patch/upgrades to XFS. imho, i XFS is doing a good job as a filesystem here. i've yet to do a comparison between rieser ext3. It is even officially unsupported according to the mails I received (at least with ext3, I don't think it's any difference with xfs). Booting from ext3 fs with ext3 as a module works fine on all the systems I have tested. The general kernel should IMO be as much modularized as possible ditto. i think this has been the motto of mandrake since day one. mainly to deploy compatability with other users systems. i doubt that they'd drop something as useful as XFS -roger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
