Re: Almost there
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:53:15AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Grub is WAY more flexible and friendly, and doesn't go broken on upgrades just because you forget to run that stupid lilo command to update the block map. I have certainly had more problems with lilo than grub in my time of using both. I prefer grub for sure. Me too. lilo has nothing to offer that grub doesn't have (it used to, but not any more). Does it work with LVM2 now? That's about the only difference I'm aware of at the moment. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- You've read the project plan. Forget that. We're going to Do --- Stuff and Have Fun doing it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Almost there
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:50:05PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: Does it work with LVM2 now? That's about the only difference I'm aware of at the moment. I think it might, but I haven't tried. I run this way: md raid1 ext2 /boot md raid1 ext3 / md raid1 lvm pv This is roughly how I have mine set up. I was just interested in whether grub knew about LVM yet. The patches for grub to handle this have been around for a couple of years, but nobody seems to have taken them on. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- You've read the project plan. Forget that. We're going to Do --- Stuff and Have Fun doing it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Almost there
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:39:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Afaik neither lilo nor grub support lvm. I thought lilo does support LVM, since it merely stores a block list for the kernel, so as long as it can work out where on the disk the kernel is. I don't have the spare hardware around at the moment to test this on to get definitive answers on each question, unfortunately. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- No names... I want to remain anomalous. --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:13:47PM -0400, David Wood wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote: There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point? They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google cached) files in [2]. And why not have them? Obviously there is a need - to ease migration... If I may venture a little further, the idea that all of this must be done in one giant atomic effort is apparently very popular... why? Because you can't demonstrate that your modified packages are actually going to work properly (and in fact, they won't, if you make only the modifications you propose) without having a working multiarch-aware packaging system to test them with. Hugo. [1] http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:eZ4_5t0ZWeoJ:raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2+site:raw.no+multiarchhl=enclient=firefox [2] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Araw.no+multiarchsourceid=mozilla-searchstart=0start=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefoxrls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to --- talk to us about this new script for Hamlet they've worked out! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google cached) files in [2]. Just out of curiosity; does anyone know what was wrong with the way documented in: http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/ It's pretty vague, since it doesn't deal with any of the problems of actually implementing those (fairly high-level) suggestions in any given package management system. On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: If I may venture a little further, the idea that all of this must be done in one giant atomic effort is apparently very popular... why? Because you can't demonstrate that your modified packages are actually going to work properly (and in fact, they won't, if you make only the modifications you propose) without having a working multiarch-aware packaging system to test them with. Sure you can. Just test them. How? You can't install your two multiarch versions of libvorbis without a hacked package manager that understands how to do it. It sounds like you want to maintain two sets of packages: one normal, one fixed for multiarch. Is that really easier than just making the links, updating your existing set of packages over time, and doing verification on a pre-release multiarch systems with increasing aggressiveness until a multiarch release? You make it sound all so simple... Might I suggest you present a set of patches for dpkg that allows the installation of two different architectures of a library in a consistent and functional manner? I'm certainly willing to talk over the details with you towards that end. Yes, I'm harping on about the problems of the package manager side of things, but only because those are the ones I've tried to work on in the past and know the best. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Modern medicine does not treat causes: headaches are not --- caused by a paracetamol deficiency. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:18:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You're right, of course, but I don't understand why we should avoid doing them. With the new dirs in place and linked from the old locations, package conversion can start. Until then, the process waits to start. Why wait? We shouldn't. We just have to test this very carefully or the fallout of a bad upload will create too much oposition to including multiarch patches and slow us down overall. Imaging the bad blood you would create if you break libc6. Agreed. It's a very bad idea to hare off into the distance changing library packages left, right centre if you can't demonstrate with a small set (read: one or two) of packages that it really does work. It may be plainly obvious to you that simply changing symlinks will work and be sufficient for the purpose, but it's far from obvious to many other people. It took me quite some time of conversation with others in IRC (primarily Tollef) to understand even some of the issues involved in making this change. As with most wide-ranging changes, it really isn't as simple as it first appears. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Modern medicine does not treat causes: headaches are not --- caused by a paracetamol deficiency. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:20:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for multiple archs, we are only saying we won't make this a policy. It is left to each package maintainer to decide if he wants to make the multiarch change for his binary too or not and nearly every one will not. All right, this is a solution I can live with. Until now I thought, that it would be impossible, even with multiarch, to install two programs together. It is impossible to install two packages that contain the same filename. Libraries use /usr/lib/arch-os/ to make libs differ between archs. That's not _entirely_ true. In Tollef's multiarch proposal, files in /usr/share/doc/package can indeed overlap between packages with precisely the same name differing only in architecture. My preliminary patches to dpkg supported that behaviour. Also programs don't depend on something like galeon (i hope). Yes, this is an assumption of Tollef's proposal. Actually, it's that programs don't depend on galeon *and care what the architecture of that package is*. (I think... don't hold me to that... :) ) Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Modern medicine does not treat causes: headaches are not --- caused by a paracetamol deficiency. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:49:08PM -0400, David Wood wrote: I actually have a completely different question. I just re-read the multi-arch doc and two things jump out: first, it looks extremely non-controvertial, i.e. all parties should at least agree it's simple and right - there's nothing wrong with it; It caused considerable controversy when it was first suggested, and continued to do so for some time. I suspect that the only reason it isn't causing much controversy at the moment is because very few people are doing anything on it right now, so it's not being noticed much. second, it looks there's no reason to wait to start. Am I a bonehead or is it just a matter of moving some directories and symlinks around in etch and then the super-gradual process (many many years if you want) of migrating things from using the legacy symlinks to the multiarch dirs... Why wait to get started? What would break? It's quite a lot more complicated than that. You need explicit support in dpkg, for a start. And in dselect, apt, and all apt's friends. I had a go at doing the dpkg support last year, and it defeated me(*). It is very much non-trivial. Then you have to modify _every_ library package to build properly, putting the files in the right places. This will probably involve at least some work on the various Debian build systems. It won't all be done by one person (or team of people), but by all the relevant developers -- but that still causes a lot of work for the multiarch developers in helping everyone else migrate. Small libraries are probably easy, but (for example) libc and libstdc++ are very nasty to get right. There are also (IIRC) big questions about handling things like perl libraries and libs for other non-compiled (or bytecode-compiled) languages, which remain unresolved. Hugo. (*) Probably not saying much -- I'm not the world's finest hacker -- but I understand I'm not alone in finding dpkg's code really awkward to work with. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Hey, Virtual Memory! Now I can have a *really big* ramdisk! --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:12:13PM -0400, David Wood wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: It caused considerable controversy when it was first suggested, and continued to do so for some time. I suspect that the only reason it isn't causing much controversy at the moment is because very few people are doing anything on it right now, so it's not being noticed much. I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem? See below... It looks like an extremely small, well-calibrated change to me. Hold that thought, I know what you're thinking... It's quite a lot more complicated than that. You need explicit support in dpkg, for a start. And in dselect, apt, and all apt's friends. I had a go at doing the dpkg support last year, and it defeated me(*). It is very much non-trivial... Why? If I read this correctly... Well, let's say you want to install a 32-bit xine. That's written in C, so you have to have a 32-bit glibc. So, you use dpkg to install the 32-bit version of glibc2. But... you can't, because you already *have* a package called glibc2 installed, which is the 64-bit version. A proposed solution of having glibc2-64 and glibc2-32 or similar package names was rejected, because it would at least double the archive storage requirements for multi-arch capable architectures. The package manager changes are required to allow (e.g.) the glibc2 from the i386 architecture and the glibc2 from the amd64 architecture to coexist, _despite having the same name_. dpkg from each architecture would have a built-in list of the architectures which could coexist. http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/ All the directories that get moved are symlinked from their original locations. All you have to do is make the move, and then the apps; dpkg, apt, etc all catch up _later_. That's all I'm suggesting. At some point the infrastructure work is done and a big enough subset of packages are ready, and you can switch. But in the meantime, why not start? At least make a decision, move the directories... I'm not as familiar with the difficulties of porting libraries to be multi-arch capable. You'll have to ask Tollef Fog Heen, who's done the vast majority of the work on that side of it, IIRC. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take --- hold - Hunter S Tolkien, Fear and Loathing in Barad D?r signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:46:44PM -0400, David Wood wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem? See below... Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about multiarch. The whole set of problems with the package management. Well, let's say you want to install a 32-bit xine. That's written in C, so you have to have a 32-bit glibc. So, you use dpkg to install the 32-bit version of glibc2. But... you can't, because you already *have* a package called glibc2 installed, which is the 64-bit version. No, you misunderstand. I don't expect that to work. It's obvious that if you just made the directory structure switch you still have a long way to go before you can install two different glibc packages. I'm just saying, why not make the directory structure switch and then _start_ doing the work of adding support to the package system/packages. Then, as I said: At some point the infrastructure work is done and a big enough subset of packages are ready, and you can switch. But in the meantime, why not start? At least make a decision, move the directories... As I think I said in my mail, I don't know enough about the library-building side of it to comment. I do recall that glibc6 and (I think) libvorbis were worked on by a couple of people -- one as an essential part of infrastructure, and the other as a porting example. I do recall that there were significant problems with both, but I don't recall what those problems were. It was over a year ago that this was done. I'm not deliberately trying to avoid your questions, but I probably am only answering the bits I can answer. :) Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take --- hold - Hunter S Tolkien, Fear and Loathing in Barad D�r signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:17AM -0700, Joel Johnson wrote: I'd like to get others opinions on filesystems on LVM - I've been using XFS which lets you grow the filesystem online. What are others' experiences with various filesystems. Reiser and I believe ext3 are growable and shrinkable, but only offline. Any other points to consider? Resierfs is online-growable, offline-shrinkable, as are ext3 and JFS. I only know about ext3 and JFS because I had to look them up for a talk I gave about LVM a couple of weeks ago. :) Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Hey, Virtual Memory! Now I can have a *really big* ramdisk! --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Sundials (was: Re: Time drift in amd64)
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:37:17AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:24:30AM +0100, Martin Dickopp wrote: Both of you are joking, I take it. But just in case someone is tempted to take this suggestion serious: The sun position does *not* peak at 12:00 winter time or 13:00 summer time. The deviation can be an hour or more, and furthermore it changes every day. The sun does peak the same time every day, but it's only at noon exactly if you are in the right place on the planet (for your time zone). If you are east or west of that the time will be off a bit, but it will still be the same every day. Actually, that's not true. It varies quite a bit, as Martin said. Take a look at the Equation of Time[1]. The variation isn't anything like as much as the hour that Martin said -- it's about +/- 15 minutes over the year. The reason it varies is (IIRC) to do with the fact that the Earth's orbit isn't circular. The earth is pretty consistent in rotating at a steady speed. Otherwise sundials wouldn't work very well. Basic sundials such as those seen in many people's gardens *don't* work very well, for the very reason given above (and the fact that they're rarely set up properly). A good sundial installation will always have some method of correcting for the current position in the equation of time, usually either by having a date-driven graticule on the plate, or by having a suitably-shaped gnomon. I've also seen sundials with the equation of time inscribed in the plate, so that you can do the correction manually. Hugo. [1] http://www.sundials.co.uk/equation.htm -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- I always felt that as a C programmer, I --- was becoming typecast. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sid installation to SATA disk
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:44:47AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Yeah linux is unfortunately one of the few unixes that does NOT have device names that map directly to a scsi bus,id,lun of the device. A real shame and very odd given how ide is handled. Of course I think with devfs is did have such devices for scsi, although I don't know if udev does. udev doesn't by default, but it can if you wish. udev ships with an optional devfs-like configuration. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Don't worry, he's not drunk. He's like that all the time. --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu with AMD64 Support
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:34:37PM +0100, Johannes Klug wrote: Hoary Hedgehog is available as a native AMD64 version. Has anyone tested this thing so far? How does it fare? I'm running it here (as an installed version, not the live CD), and have been for a couple of weeks. It's very nice. Fewer of the sharp edges I found with Warty (not that there were many to start with). Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- You've read the project plan. Forget that. We're going to Do --- Stuff and Have Fun doing it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: K8S Pro (S2882UG3NR) + Sil 3114 (Raid 1) + Sarge
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:09:55PM +0900, Nils Valentin wrote: so what you 2 are saying is that bsically a Sil3114 is as good or bad as any other software raid with the exception that it can start a boot process while on the other hand being proprietory ?? Yes, that's about it. Just two points: If I understand it correctly, the SiI3114 chip doesn't know anything about the boot process -- that piece of functionality is dependent on and provided by the BIOS of the card (or motherboard). Note also that it's SiI (capital i), not Sil (lower case L). If I create a Software raid with f.e. Debian and I decide to Dual boot into Mandrake, Suse ... whatever should that work ? Yes, provided the other OSes know about the software RAID array you've created (so you need the kernel support, the user-space tools, and whatever user-space configuration is necessary). Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- I'm all for giving people enough rope to shoot themselves in --- the foot -- Andreas Dilger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dchroot with differnt linux distro ?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 06:47:14PM -1000, Rolf Seuster wrote: Hi all, is it possible to use dchroot to mix a debian-amd64 with a different linux distribution, e.g. scientific linux cern (based on RedHat Enterprise) Or do significant differences between Debian and RedHat make this impossible? Yes, it's perfectly possible to do so. I've run Debian in a chroot on a SuSE box before, and I currently have a Debian 32 bit chroot on my Ubuntu 64 bit installation (admittedly, the difference in the latter case is small, but...). Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can --- with just a kind word. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SATA RAID (MSI Neo-FSR) on debian-amd64
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 11:43:19AM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote: Oh, this might be important: There are no IDE devices on my system aside from the dvd-burner. The installer talks about writing the bootloader to the mbr or hdd1 (with hardwareraid=on, software raid=off and hardwareraid=off, softwareraid=off), whilst such device doesn't really exist. The sata drives are identified by the installer as scsi drives. I'm not sure LILO and/or Grub understand SATA devices mapped to /dev/sd*, all my amd64 box is netbooted (using pxelinux). Yes, they do. My AMD64 box boots using Grub from a SATA drive (off one of the on-board controllers), and I use /dev/sda for the drive. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- What part of gestalt don't you understand? --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ati video card driver problem
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 01:46:17PM +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote: On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 12:31:56PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: ATi have not released binary drivers for amd64. If you want to use your graphics card under Linux, you will have to run a 32-bit kernel and a 32-bit system. Needless to say, this has made a number of people (including myself) somewhat angry. The XFree86 ati drivers in the gcc-3.4 tree seems to be rock solid, although you will only get 2D support. Yes, this is what I'm using. As you say, though, only 2D support. The original poster was asking whether there was an alternative to the XFree86 ati driver. I suspect that they won't release 64-bit drivers for Linux until 64-bit Windows ships. That makes no sense since they're shipping 64-bit AMD64 drivers for 64-bit Windows XP: http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4424.html Considering that 64-bit Linux on AMD64 probably is an order of magnitude more popular than 64-bit Windows, I wouldn't hold my breath. That's still the Windows XP/64 beta programme. Originally, ATi were only going to ship the 64-bit Windows drivers after XP/64 went gold. Eventually, they were persuaded (how?) that they should release drivers for the XP/64 beta, which are the ones you link to. What I can't understand is how the company can be so unbelievably uncommunicative about something so fundamental. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 4: Future Perfect --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: Hi, Ever since I got close to the stage where I wanted to upgrade my Matrox P650 with a Sledgehammer (pun intended) I am looking for experiences by others with ATI or nVidia cards, especially with the OSS-drivers (especially since ATI has stil not delivered an AMD64-enabled Linux-driver). Unfortunately posts about them are a bit rare it seems, especially for Debian. So I would like to hear some experiences from you people. I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. I have an ATi Radeon 9600 Pro. It works (in the sense that I can get X running acceptably). 2D works; 3D is unsupported. There are no 64-bit capable drivers for the 3D parts of the card for linux yet. ATi are being completely uncommunicative on the subject, and I'm starting to regret buying the card, after having been a happy ATi customer for many years. Just my experience, Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- If you're not part of the solution, you're part --- of the precipiate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
