Easy "Add/Remove Porgrams" for non-sudoers with local PREFIX?
Like in many packages, you can say ./configure PREFIX=~/bin you'll install the package locally and don't need to be superuser. Are there any plans to integrate this functionality with synaptic/Add-Remove for non-sudoers, or am I missing something? br Carsten -- http://www.modspil.dk -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
RE: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
>>A little while ago there was a discussion here about fsck running at >>boot, >>and the program AutoFsck. The author of AutoFsck just contacted me and >>asked >>me what his next step should be. I don't have any official standing in >>the >>Ubuntu dev community, so I'm just going to forward his message out >>here in >the hopes that it will get opened up for a more comprehensive >>discussion. >>Evan >>PS I also sent him a link to join this list, so hopefully he'll be >>able to >>contribute to the discussion. I too was contacted by a Jonathon Musther. But the email I received was different. It reads... Hi Chris Jones I wouldn\'t normally use this mailing list for anything other than announcements about new versions of AutoFsck. But I have been inundated with people requesting information on how to promote AutoFsck, and get it (or something with the functionality) into the Ubuntu distribution. I\'ve been trying to do this myself for a long time, but have not got very far. To this end I have set up a petition at the bottom of the page: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck Please read it and consider adding your name. Also feel free to email me if you have any comments, suggestions etc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kind Regards Jonathan Musther I'm not quite sure why I received it either. I suspect it's just because I'm a member of the AutoFsck Mailing List. -- Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 22:17 +0100, Mario Vukelic wrote: > When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by > Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's > been a long time though, and searching now turns up nothing definitive > for me. Ah, I think I found an incomplete quote of what I had in mind. It's not really conclusive, and I'd like to know that was edited out anyway. http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html "Q: If a system shutdown hard, even with journaling is it at all necessary to run e2fsck? Theodore Ts'o said: It's best to just always run e2fsck. [...] E2fsck will run the journal automatically, and if the filesystem is otherwise clean, it skip doing a full filesystem check. If the filesystem is not clean (because during the previous run the kernel noticed some filesystem inconsistencies), e2fsck will automatically do a full check if it is necessary. If you have multiple disks, fsck will run multiple e2fsck processes in parallel, thus speeding up your boot sequence than if you let the kernel replay the journal for each filesystem when it tries to mount it, since then the journal replays will be done sequentially, instead of in parallel." Here's Stephen Tweedie, he clearly states that no fsck is needed after a dirty unmount, but I don't find anything on periodic scheduled checks (which can be scheduled only on a server, not a personal computer). Is Tweedie still at RedHat? If so it should be no problem to ask. http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-ext3/OLS2000-ext3.html "And some of these EXT2 filesystems are getting really rather big. Even 24 months ago, there were people building 500 gigabyte EXT2 filesystems. They take a long time to fsck. I mean, really. These are filesystems that can take three or four hours just to mkfs. Doing a consistency check on them is a serious down time. So the real objective in EXT3 was this simple thing: availability. When something goes down in EXT3, we don't want to have to go through a fsck. We want to be able to reboot the machine instantly and have everything nice and consistent. And that's all it does. It's a minimal extension to the existing EXT2 filesystem to add journaling. And it's really important, EXT2 is the workhorse filesystem. It's the standard stable filesystem. We don't want to turn EXT2 into an experimental filesystem. For one thing, users expect to have EXT2 there as a demonstration of how to code filesystems for Linux. It's a small, easily understood filesystem which demonstrates how to do all of the talking to the page cache, which has changed in 2.4, all of the locking in the directory handling, which has changed in 2.4. All of these changes in the VFS interface and the VM interface that filesystems have to deal with are showcased in EXT2. So there are multiple reasons why we really do not want to start making EXT2 into an experimental filesystem, adding all sorts of new destabilizing features. And so the real goal for EXT3 was to provide the minimal changes necessary to provide a complete journaling solution. [03m, 26s] So it provides scaling of the disk filesystem size and it allows you to make larger and larger filesystems without the fsck penalty." -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 09:44 +1300, Jonathan Musther wrote: > I would very much like to hear from somebody on the ext3 team about > this. When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's been a long time though, and searching now turns up nothing definitive for me. I find the long-standing insecurity abut this topic very weird, though. If an important ext3-using distro like Ubuntu asked the ext3 team, wouldn't they get an answer quickly? I would think so. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu Screens/Resolutions Management - or the reason i still MUST use m$ windows
What card are you using? I was just wondering if anybody else is having troubles with nvidia cards and two monitors? On Dec 16, 2007 6:58 PM, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there. > I meant to write this email to Ubuntu-Desktop ML, but since you brought this > topic, I'll reply here. > > Last Saturday, I did a small presentation on apt-cacher, and using Ubuntu > Hardy, without any xorg.conf due to the new X 7.3 and xrandr 1.2, and plug-in > for the > first time a projector (@ 1024x768 vs 1280x800 12.1" LCD) with hardy on my > 855 Intel, it was a great surprise that (almost) everything "Just Worked". > After GDM started, I could see both screens. Sure, some parts of it were > cut-off 'cause of the 1024<1280. > After login, i just clicked on Grandr v0.2 applet and changed the resolution > to 1024. For some freak setting, my LCD got turned off, and I was left with > only the > projector. > I opened up a console, and typed xrandr --auto. My LCD turned on, the top and > bottom bars were set to 1024 px, but I still could see and use an extra screen > space at the right of the screen. > > Bottom line, at least on Hardy, most of it worked great, and even better then > using displayconfig-gtk (which requires X restart) or grandr UI ( that seems > to not > work that great on current xrandr and crashs a bit). > Didnt had the time to test using xrandr --left-of /--right-of > (to have a dual-monitor system, instead of clone screen system) or > --size (to fix > my LCD strange look), but I guess I'll give it a go with an external CRT/LCD > this week. > > Sure, I agree with you, that the OS/X should (automatically) detect the the > VGA is no longer in use, instead of requiring the [power]user to punch > xrandr --auto, > but I can live with it on an Alpha/Developement OS. My magor peeve with my > transaction from windows still remains the lack of S-Video / TV Out support on > pre-9xx Intel GPUs. > > > > -- > BUGabundo :o) > (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net > Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB > My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
I've spent a lot of time looking for the reasoning behind still doing the checks, all I've found is anecdotal evidence, some people say they have first hand experience of errors creeping in, which were then fixed by fsck. On the other hand some people, although a small number, have turned them off with no apparent trouble. I would very much like to hear from somebody on the ext3 team about this. I'm not against simply disabling the checks on principle, but I would want to be confident that it wasn't going to cause problems. On Dec 21, 2007 9:31 AM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Musther wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > > 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the > author > > of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to > > shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. > > I still say we should just disable the checks entirely. No other > filesystem still does this nonsense. It's just a holdover from ext2, > which had it as a leftover from ext, which had it out of convention from > minix, which did it as purely pedantic ( or did it actually perform some > maintenance then that needed done periodically? I can't remember ). > > On the other hand, your solution looks like a great improvement. > > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Jonathan Musther wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author > of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to > shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. I still say we should just disable the checks entirely. No other filesystem still does this nonsense. It's just a holdover from ext2, which had it as a leftover from ext, which had it out of convention from minix, which did it as purely pedantic ( or did it actually perform some maintenance then that needed done periodically? I can't remember ). On the other hand, your solution looks like a great improvement. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
fsck on boot is major usability issue
Hi, I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. I've been trying (see blueprint below) to get the functionality of AutoFsck included in Ubuntu for a long time, with no success. I have requested support and guidance from the ubuntu-desktop team in launchpad, with no response, I've gone through the idea pool and forums (with great support from users), and had no luck. So I'm hoping that by restarting discussion on this list, that we might be able to get somewhere. Here is the blueprint, and the rest of this (admittedly rather long) email deals with the rationale for something like AutoFsck, and what we can do next: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown I think it's well established now that this is a major problem in terms of usability - whenever AutoFsck is discussed there are some people who talk about leaving their computer on for months, there being no need to reboot, windows users coming to linux and complaining about perfectly sane checks, putting data at risk by running checks on shutdown rather than boot etc. I think it's fair to discount these simply by calling them short sighted. The Ubuntu distribution aims to be easy for the new user, or simply the user who just wants to get on with browsing the web, writing documents and looking at photos without having the OS make life difficult for them. This ease of use doesn't mean we have to compromise on quality, or even on advanced features for advanced users, but this isn't an issue of a feature which is too complex for novice users - it's an issue of bad system design from a usability standpoint. So, on the one hand the check is a useful safeguard against some types of filesystem damage, and on the other it can be very annoying to the user. The first thing to note is that this check doesn't have to be done every 30 boots, or every 20, or every 40. Those numbers are arbitrary, the more often you do the check, the safer you're likely to be, it's simple arithmetic, but it would also be absurd to suggest doing it every boot cycle. So it doesn't matter when the check is run, boot or shutdown, or even during the session (forgetting for the moment the technical issues with that) - so long as it is run periodically. As a consequence, when I wrote AutoFsck I didn't have to worry about running checks on a strict deadline, I thoughts simply about usability. When is the most convenient time to run a disk check? The obvious answer is when the user no longer wants to use the computer, on shutdown. But what if they are packing away a laptop and need it to turn of right now? Well, have a dialogue asking if it's a good time to do the check, if they say no, shut down and prompt them again next time. And there we have AutoFsck, that's all it does. There are a few other features, an audio prompt to get the users attention, a timeout in case they don't see the dialogue (the computer will shut down without running the check after 2 minutes) - but essentially that's it. Of course there are issues with AutoFsck, I'm not suggesting it should go into the Ubuntu distribution in its current form (although it is fully functional). Some people worry that users will get into the habit of saying no (when prompted to run fsck) so they don't ever run the check. Well to be honest that is the users right, but I see no evidence from the users of AutoFsck - most users are more in the habit of clicking yes, it's not often that they need to say no. What to do now? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm open to any suggestions, help with AutoFsck, discussion of how we could get this functionality into the Ubuntu distribution, discussion of the technicalities of AutoFsck, how it works etc. On some AutoFsck users suggestion I've created a sort of petition for this functionality, at the bottom of: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck The idea pool thread which relates to this is: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3985270#post3985270 Jon -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Changing dpkg-deb default compression from gzip to lzma for Hardy
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Let me add my 2 cents' worth. I don't know what algorithm is used by > lzma, but I think there are other factors than CPU speed and size that > matters. Namely memory. lzma IS the name of the algorithm, and it is used by the 7zip program. > As an example, I can tell you that in the past we have experienced > problems with the quite serious memory requirements of bunzip2. In > several instances, we have seen bunzip2 fail for apparently mysterious > reasons. Eventually, it turned out, the only way to solve the problem > was to change the memory sticks on the motherboard. Even though > memtest86+ did not reveal any problems with the RAM, bunzip2 seems to be > extremely sensitive to (I think) how well the particular type of memory > is supported by the motherboard. It is possibly some kind of timing issue. Then the hardware was bad... nothing we can do about that. It is unlikely, but possible, for there to be a hardware defect that memtest86 will not find after a lengthy run, but will crop up under different memory loads. > I want to emphasize that we never had problems running gunzip > decompression even on the systems affected by the bunzip2 issue. As I > said, I don't know the lzma algorithm at all, but I fear that in such an > efficient compression procedure, there is a risk that similar problems > could appear. Needless to say, failure to decompress packages properly > could completely brick the system. > > The gzip algorithm may not be the most efficient of all, but it is > extremely reliable, fast, and memory-efficient. lzma does use more memory to decompress ( and GOBS to compress ) but I don't think we should hold back progress to continue to support ancient machines with only 8 megs of ram. > IMHO, the 10% gain on the size of an install CD is quickly eaten by > new/expanded packages, and soon, the same problem/discussion will > return. I think the effort is better spent in making bone-hard > priorities on what goes on the CD and what remains available from the > archives. I think the number was more like 20%, but even if it was only 10%, fitting 10% more on a CD is _extremely_ useful. You can prioritize all you like but at the end of the day, the difference between being able to fit x more packages on the cd than you could otherwise is quite a difference, unless you already have so many on there that the additional ones are so far down the list of priorities as to be not useful to most people. > And, perhaps, a special "try-me-out" CD edition could be designed, with > samples of some of the latest and greatest software, but without some of > the server tools and other stuff one would normally select for a running > system. The desktop CD doesn't come with any server tools. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
