Re: [Leaf-devel] [dachstein] feature add
Matt Schalit wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Charles, >> >>For Dachenstein, not having set it up yet myself. Perhaps a specific menu item to >back up the ssh keys... >>hThat just doesn't sound right. Well, I'll post it anyway to generate >thought. >> >>-sp >> > > >How about deciding to call leaf stuff leaf >and not lrp anymore? > > .lrp files > >lrp all over sourceforge documents. > Perhaps we could make use of a change of the suffix in the package names to make a distinction between the older lrp packages and a new new more featurefull leaf format :-) (OMG what topic did I bring up) Ewald Wasscher ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] [dachstein] feature add
> >How about deciding to call leaf stuff leaf > >and not lrp anymore? > > > > .lrp files > > > >lrp all over sourceforge documents. > > > Perhaps we could make use of a change of the suffix in the package names > to make a distinction between the older lrp packages and a new new more > featurefull leaf format :-) (OMG what topic did I bring up) What about .tgz ? It corresponds exactly to what .lrp packages are: tar xzvf package.lrp unpack any ".lrp" package tar czvf package.lrp . creates any ".lrp" package The only "specificity" of an .lrp package are the files in /var/lib/lrpkg. It does not correspond to a specific storage format. Jacques -- Profitez de l'offre spéciale Tiscali Liberty Surf ! 50% de temps en plus pendant 3 mois sur tous les forfaits Internet. http://register.libertysurf.fr/subscribe_fr/signup.php3 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Proposed change to shell devel tree
Mike Noyes wrote: > Everyone, > Here is a revised version of my previous post. > > We need to make some changes to our handling of individual developer > content. We are running out of space on the shell server. SF only > allocates a maximum of approximately 1G of space on the shell server. > Our devel tree is currently using 772M. > > Proposed changes: > Kernels shall only be provided in tarball format. This is a pain if someone only needs a module for e.g. a nic. This would require downloading 5M when you only need a 15k module. Perhaps obsolete kernels could be removed? Charles seems to have 186M of kernels/modules, and only the 2.2.19-3 kernel has all known security holes fixed, so the others shouldn't be used anyway. > > * space savings over individual files > * tarballs only take a few minutes to download even at V.90 speeds Agreed, but IMHO it's still a waste of bandwidth. > > Archive developer directories on the shell server that haven't been > updated within the last six months. A tarball of the developer's > directory will be placed in our cvs repository. It shall reside in the > developers personal devel tree in cvs. After the tarball is verified, > the devel directory on the shell server will be removed. > * reduce tech support questions about old files > * developer directory can be restored from cvs > * space savings on shell server > > Opinions, comments, and/or suggestions on this proposal are welcome. At your service! Ewald Wasscher ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Proposed change to shell devel tree
At 2002-01-17 18:37 +0100, Ewald Wasscher wrote: >Mike Noyes wrote: >>Here is a revised version of my previous post. >> >>We need to make some changes to our handling of individual developer >>content. We are running out of space on the shell server. SF only >>allocates a maximum of approximately 1G of space on the shell server. Our >>devel tree is currently using 772M. >> >>Proposed changes: >>Kernels shall only be provided in tarball format. > >This is a pain if someone only needs a module for e.g. a nic. This would >require downloading 5M when you only need a 15k module. Perhaps obsolete >kernels could be removed? Charles seems to have 186M of kernels/modules, >and only the 2.2.19-3 kernel has all known security holes fixed, so the >others shouldn't be used anyway. Ewald, Thanks for the feedback. :-) I thought about your suggestion, and I agree that some of the older content could be removed. It is available from our files area [1], so the content in the devel tree on the shell server is redundant. However, your suggestion is harder to use as a policy. I believe there are differing opinions as to what current means for a kernel. Am I mistaken? Developers can always place expanded kernels in their personal tree [2] in our cvs repository. Binary files should download properly from ViewCVS provided the -kb sticky tags are set. So, single module downloads would still be possible. [1] http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13751 [2] http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/leaf/devel/ -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] SF Mail Archive beta
Everyone, It looks like SourceForge is implementing the mailing list archive replacement for GeoCrawler. http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=13751 -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Proposed change to web site
At 2002-01-15 08:55 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote: >I would like to make the following changes to our phpWebSite. > >Disable user logins Everyone, I just did this on a trial basis. I changed the default Main Menu view also. Let me know if you think it's better this way. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
