Re: Easy "Add/Remove Porgrams" for non-sudoers with local PREFIX?

[Jason Crain]

Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> You'd have to have special packages for local and for system-wide.  
> ./configure is during compile, not during installation, so you'd have 
> to compile twice for each package to have one that goes in ~
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 11:24 AM, Carsten Agger <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> 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?
> 
>

The problem seems to be that programs will look for their files in /etc 
and /usr/share.  You could do something similar to what fakeroot does.  
Load a library that wraps open and stat system calls.  You could then 
check for files in ~/.user_root before looking in the real root.  Then 
programs wouldn't have to be recompiled.  Though, it would take a 
miracle to keep this from breaking some programs...

-- 
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

[Aaron C. de Bruyn]

> Of course then there's the laptop angle.
> My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left.  One day I either 
> need a new laptop or to pony up a thousand for a shiny new model.
> Anyways--I usually hit shutdown, unplug everything and throw it in my bag.
> 
> It would definitely run out of juice before the check was done on my 120 GB 
> drive.
> 
> -A

Doh.  My bad.  Totally missed the whole part of the thread discussing exactly 
what I just said.

-A

-- 
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

[Aaron C. de Bruyn]

> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.

Of course then there's the laptop angle.
My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left.  One day I either 
need a new laptop or to pony up a thousand for a shiny new model.
Anyways--I usually hit shutdown, unplug everything and throw it in my bag.

It would definitely run out of juice before the check was done on my 120 GB 
drive.

-A

-- 
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]

I agree entirely, the user shouldn't have to say, "no, don't do it" they
should have to say "yes, now is a good time".

On Dec 22, 2007 10:46 AM, Chris Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth
>
>
>
> (1) At shutdown is good
>
> (2) Timeout/interuptable – is good
>
> (3) BUT.  The default action should be "No Action"
>
>
>
> At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required
>
> When the timeout occurs (it should be short – say 30 seconds) the default
> should be to skip it until the next shutdown
>
> IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the
> fsck.
>
> One the fsck is complete the machine turns off as usual
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Chris Martin
>
> m: 0419 812 371
>
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---
>   --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
> Musther
> *Sent:* Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:54 AM
> *To:* Aurélien Naldi
> *Cc:* ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> *Subject:* Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
>
>
>
> If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
> skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.
>
> I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
> then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately
> switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's
> laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat.  In that particular
> case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a
> powered up hard drive.  The latest version now contains a timeout, if no
> selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without
> running the check.  There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this.
>
> The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter
> whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they
> certainly want to use it now.  When most people shut down, they don't care
> as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style
> prompt, they can postpone it if they need to.
>
> Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot
> times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same
> time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized
> disks).
>
>
>  On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
>
> I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
> about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how
> good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ?
> Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I
> don't want to be late because of a fsck.
>
> Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more
> important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;)
>
> Regards.
> --
> Aurelien Naldi
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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

[Chris Martin]

I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth

 

(1) At shutdown is good

(2) Timeout/interuptable – is good

(3) BUT.  The default action should be “No Action”

 

At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required

When the timeout occurs (it should be short – say 30 seconds) the default
should be to skip it until the next shutdown

IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the fsck.

One the fsck is complete the machine turns off as usual

 

 

---

Chris Martin

m: 0419 812 371

e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Musther
Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:54 AM
To: Aurélien Naldi
Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue

 

If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.

I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately
switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's
laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat.  In that particular
case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a
powered up hard drive.  The latest version now contains a timeout, if no
selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without
running the check.  There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. 

The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter whether
they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they
certainly want to use it now.  When most people shut down, they don't care
as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style
prompt, they can postpone it if they need to.  

Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot times,
this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same time we
allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized disks).





On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. 

I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how
good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? 
Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I
don't want to be late because of a fsck.

Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more
important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) 

Regards.
--
Aurelien Naldi



--
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




-- 
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: Easy "Add/Remove Porgrams" for non-sudoers with local PREFIX?

[Carsten Agger]

Carsten Agger wrote:
> Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> You´d have to have special packages for local and for system-wide.
>> ./configure is during compile, not during installation, so you´d have
>> to compile twice for each package to have one that goes in ~
>>
> 
> Yes, that might be a problem - a solution might be to grab the source
> code when installing to ~ and then compile on-the-fly - which will, of
> course, make installation take a bit longer, especially on older/slower
> machines.
> 
> Still, I think the inability to easily install locally, without using
> sudo (and without bothering other users) is a usability problem -
> however, if the directory/path structure is laid down at compile time,
> it may not be easy to come up with a satisfactory solution.
> 
> I still think it'd be a very nice feature to have, though - allow people
> to have the Add/Remove goodness even without being sudoers - it would be
> a huge improvement in all many-user environments.
> 

Anyway, I know that Mark Shuttleworth recently said that such
suggestions are much more welcome from "people with patches" than from
"people with demands", however of course it wasn't meant as much as a
demand as a suggestion - being able to easily install programs without
having admin rights where not needed *would* be a good idea, I think. I
*might* have a go at a patch, however this would have to be after the
holidays ...

so Happy Holidays, everyone

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: fsck on boot is major usability issue

[Jonathan Musther]

To try to answer the question of whether we could simply disable the
periodic fsck, I decided to ask Mingming Cao, one of the developers
who has worked on ext3 and later, ext4.  I just got the following:

"Periodically fsck ext3 is still needed, even if ext3 is a journalled fs.
kernel code vm/fs could be buggy, or disks IO errors, which cause
filesystem metadata corrupted silently, this can't be detected by simply
replaying the journal log.

Well how often should ext3 do the sanity check is really depend on the
customer's priority, whether they would like to trade some of the boot
up time with more confident of the fs's healthy.  It's probably a good
idea to warning the user that the scheduled fsck is coming and let user
to decide whether they want to do it or delaying it."

That answers it for me.

On Dec 21, 2007 9:31 AM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> 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: Easy "Add/Remove Porgrams" for non-sudoers with local PREFIX?

[Carsten Agger]

Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You´d have to have special packages for local and for system-wide.
> ./configure is during compile, not during installation, so you´d have
> to compile twice for each package to have one that goes in ~
>

Yes, that might be a problem - a solution might be to grab the source
code when installing to ~ and then compile on-the-fly - which will, of
course, make installation take a bit longer, especially on older/slower
machines.

Still, I think the inability to easily install locally, without using
sudo (and without bothering other users) is a usability problem -
however, if the directory/path structure is laid down at compile time,
it may not be easy to come up with a satisfactory solution.

I still think it'd be a very nice feature to have, though - allow people
to have the Add/Remove goodness even without being sudoers - it would be
a huge improvement in all many-user environments.

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: fsck on boot is major usability issue

[Mario Vukelic]

On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:09 -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when on battery?

But there are definitely people who rarely or never use the laptop while
plugged in. E.g., they may charge overnight, unplug and take the laptop
on the road, replugging in the evening.


-- 
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

[Bryan Quigley]

With the battery issue.  Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when
on battery?
I personally thought the entire point of journalled file-systems was to not
have to do this kind of check. In fact getting rid of this kind of thing was
one of the great features of NTFS over FAT (on windows).  On moving to
Linux, I felt like I had taken a step backwards in that aspect of
file-systems.
Thanks,
Bryan Quigley

On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Jonathan Musther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
> skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.
>
> I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
> then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately
> switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's
> laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat.  In that particular
> case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a
> powered up hard drive.  The latest version now contains a timeout, if no
> selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without
> running the check.  There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this.
>
> The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter
> whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they
> certainly want to use it now.  When most people shut down, they don't care
> as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style
> prompt, they can postpone it if they need to.
>
> Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot
> times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same
> time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized
> disks).
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> > > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> > > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
> > about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how
> > good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ?
> > Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I
> > don't want to be late because of a fsck.
> >
> > Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more
> > important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;)
> >
> > Regards.
> > --
> > Aurelien Naldi
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
-- 
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]

If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.

I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately
switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's
laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat.  In that particular
case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a
powered up hard drive.  The latest version now contains a timeout, if no
selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without
running the check.  There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this.

The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter whether
they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they
certainly want to use it now.  When most people shut down, they don't care
as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style
prompt, they can postpone it if they need to.

Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot times,
this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same time we
allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized disks).



On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
>
> I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
> about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how
> good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ?
> Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I
> don't want to be late because of a fsck.
>
> Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more
> important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;)
>
> Regards.
> --
> Aurelien Naldi
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
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

[Sam Tygier]

Jonathan Musther wrote:
> It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an
> interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown?

fsck at shutdown is good.

back in the day, i used to use a hardware checking tool on mac os (i think it 
was called tech tools), iirc the default was for it to do all the checks at 
shutdown.

i am using autofsck now.

one issue (that i have reported) is that it will prompt you even if you are 
logging out. it would be great if it could detect that the user had click 
shutdown and only run then.

sam


-- 
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

[Morten Kjeldgaard]

Just out of curiosity: might there be something to gain by using a  
different file system (Reiser4, XFS, JFS)?

-- Morten


-- 
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

[Aurélien Naldi]

On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.

I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how
good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ?
Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I
don't want to be late because of a fsck.

Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more
important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;)

Regards.
-- 
Aurelien Naldi


-- 
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

[Evan]

My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
-- 
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: Will PulseAudio be in Hardy? (Re: New Programs for Hardy?)

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:36:18AM +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> I think PulseAudio can save every user great amount of trouble regarding
> sound issues, and bad bad esd.
> 
> I hope PulseAudio get included in Hardy as default.

It already is.

-- 
Colin Watson   [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

[Jonathan Musther]

It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an
interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown?

Certainly an interruptible check is an improvement, but is it still lacking
in usability?

Also, would the user have to skip the check within a timeout (something like
"Press enter within 10 seconds to skip"), or would they be able to cancel it
at any point?

Personally, I think having the check at boot is inconvenient, even if it can
be skipped, but what do others think?

On Dec 21, 2007 9:37 PM, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jonathan Musther [2007-12-21  9:16 +1300]:
> >   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.
>
> We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in
> favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things
> just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check.
>
> We proposed some changes in [1] to alleviate this:
>
>  * Make the boot-time check interruptible if the file system was
>   clean, and print out a message when a check happens (otherwise the
>   user does not know at all what's going on).
>
>  * Offer some 'check now'/'check at next boot' (depending on whether
>   the partition is currently mounted) buttons in the drive properties
>   in the UI.
>
> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/PartitionManagement
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de
> Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntu.com
> Debian Developer   http://www.debian.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
>



-- 
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

[Martin Pitt]

Hi,

Jonathan Musther [2007-12-21  9:16 +1300]:
>   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. 

We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in
favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things
just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check.

We proposed some changes in [1] to alleviate this:

 * Make the boot-time check interruptible if the file system was
   clean, and print out a message when a check happens (otherwise the
   user does not know at all what's going on).

 * Offer some 'check now'/'check at next boot' (depending on whether
   the partition is currently mounted) buttons in the drive properties
   in the UI.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/PartitionManagement

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.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: Easy "Add/Remove Porgrams" for non-sudoers with local PREFIX?

[Mackenzie Morgan]

You'd have to have special packages for local and for system-wide.
./configure is during compile, not during installation, so you'd have to
compile twice for each package to have one that goes in ~

On Dec 20, 2007 11:24 AM, Carsten Agger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
Linux User #432169
ACM Member #3445683
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com <-my blog of Ubuntu stuff
apt-get moo
-- 
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