Re: Large File Systems - Enough inodes?
On 20/05/14 18:00, Richard Hector wrote: > I like to create filesystems relatively small, on LVM, so that any of > them can be grown later, when I find out where the space is needed. But > extending an ext(2|3|4) filesystem doesn't create new inodes, so the > ratio of inodes to space drops, and eventually this is a problem. Just a data point, this behaviour has changed; wheezy's mke2fs(8) has this: > Be warned that it is not possible to expand the number of inodes > on a filesystem after it is created, so be careful deciding the > correct value for this parameter. Whereas jessie's mke2fs(8) has this: > Note that resizing a filesystem changes the numer of inodes to > maintain this ratio. After a bit of searching, I found this patch applied to e2fsprog: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/40554 I am not sure when the behaviour of resize2fs changed, but the patch submitter said "The man page still said it was not possible to change the number of inodes on a filesystem after creating it." suggesting that there had been some time between the code and doc change. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537bc78f.3060...@zoho.com
Re: apt-pinning, strange behavior
On 10/10/13 22:06, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> berenger.mo...@neutralite.org writes:
>
>> In the same priority range, the package which will be installed is the
>> one with the highest priority, so it is fine to have one set of
>> package with 500 ( or I could take 600 or any other value ) for low
>> priority, and the other at 900 ( or 800 or... ), so that the version
>> with 900 will be installed against the lower one, even if the lower
>> one is more recent.
>
> Oh... Truely? I thought differently and was sure I am right.
>
> I just skimmed again through apt_preferences man page, but did not find
> such examples or explanations. Where's it documented?
For reference, the section in apt_preferences(5) that documents this is:
> APT then applies the following rules, listed in order of precedence, to
> determine which version of a package to install.
> · Never downgrade unless the priority of an available version exceeds
> 1000. ("Downgrading" is installing a less recent version of a
> package in place of a more recent version. Note that none of APT's
> default priorities exceeds 1000; such high priorities can only be
> set in the preferences file. Note also that downgrading a package
> can be risky.)
> · Install the highest priority version.
> · If two or more versions have the same priority, install the most
> recent one (that is, the one with the higher version number).
> · If two or more versions have the same priority and version number
> but either the packages differ in some of their metadata or the
> --reinstall option is given, install the uninstalled one.
As you can see, it uses the priority first, and then the version number.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53107035.1040...@zoho.com
Re: Just a question...........
On 21/06/2013 16:51, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > I don't run Debian at the moment and btdownload* seems to be something > very hidden. Sorry, replied-to-sender-only! Repost to list. Keyboard shortcuts >.< http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=btdownloadcurses&mode=filename&suite=stable&arch=any It is in both the bittornado and bittorrent packages. Take your pick :) regards, theartloy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51c47964.6040...@zoho.com
Re: Wy no clang in jessie
On 19/06/2013 16:25, George Davidescu wrote: I could understand him fine. Thanks for the constructive input, though. Doug meant it would sound like utter gobbledigook to someone who knew nothing of Debian. :) regards, theartloy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51c1d034.5050...@zoho.com
Re: Libreoffice4 in wheezy? Several questions
Hi Hans, If you want to see why a certain package version has not yet made it from unstable into testing, you can go to: http://packages.qa.debian.org/ replacing with the name of package in question. Looking at the page for libreoffice[1], under "testing migration" you can see the pointer: * Too young, only 8 of 10 days old At this point the package migration system stopped considering this package for migration, it will not consider it for another 2 days. However, this does not necessarily mean that after two days the package will migrate; there very well might be other issues with this package, I did not study the QA page very long, I don't know. I don't believe you should give wheezy-backports a higher ranking, as the backports webpage[2] itself suggests to only update select packages. As a different question, could anyone please tell me why wheezy-backports is not showing up on packages.debian.org? Regards, theartloy [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html [2] http://backports.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5198a9da.5060...@zoho.com
