Re: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
> Hi, > > It will need manually merging from Debian in order to get the new > version in to Lucid. We have quite a lot of changes in the Ubuntu > packaging compared to Debian, which all need to be preserved. > > Regards > Chris Thanks for your help Chris. Do we need to make sure that ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 gets into squeeze before the LTSDebianImportFreeze? Or will a developer take care of this and the manual merging you describe once the updated version appears in Debian, as long as it occurs before the FeatureFreeze? best, stephan -- 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: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 05:48 -0500, stephan wrote: > Thanks for the pointer Daniel! > > It looks like Michael will help us all out and do a non-maintainer > upgrade to get 2010.1.16 into testing: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560685#44 > > Does that mean it will automatically go into Lucid? Or is there more > work to be done since the package in Ubuntu ends with "-1ubuntu5" ? > Thanks, > > stephan Hi, It will need manually merging from Debian in order to get the new version in to Lucid. We have quite a lot of changes in the Ubuntu packaging compared to Debian, which all need to be preserved. Regards Chris signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
Thanks for the pointer Daniel! It looks like Michael will help us all out and do a non-maintainer upgrade to get 2010.1.16 into testing: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560685#44 Does that mean it will automatically go into Lucid? Or is there more work to be done since the package in Ubuntu ends with "-1ubuntu5" ? Thanks, stephan On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough > wrote: >> I'd second this. I've done some (admittedly unscientific) testing >> running two VirtualBox VMs concurrently off the same NTFS disk* >> (Karmic and Windows 7 on a Lucid host). With 2009.4.4 there was >> significant lag; programs and menus took a noticeable time to appear. >> After updating to 2010.1.16 both are purring along nicely, even when >> the host has disk activity (such as aptitude installing a kernel >> update) which previously made a single VM lag. >> >> Considering how trivial it was to install from source it can't be >> difficult to include in Lucid? Or do we need to file a request >> somewhere? > > There is already > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560685, so I > recommend working as quickly and diligently as possible to get it into > Debian testing. > > Best, > -Dan > > -- > 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: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote: > I'd second this. I've done some (admittedly unscientific) testing > running two VirtualBox VMs concurrently off the same NTFS disk* > (Karmic and Windows 7 on a Lucid host). With 2009.4.4 there was > significant lag; programs and menus took a noticeable time to appear. > After updating to 2010.1.16 both are purring along nicely, even when > the host has disk activity (such as aptitude installing a kernel > update) which previously made a single VM lag. > > Considering how trivial it was to install from source it can't be > difficult to include in Lucid? Or do we need to file a request > somewhere? There is already http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560685, so I recommend working as quickly and diligently as possible to get it into Debian testing. Best, -Dan -- 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: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
2010/1/20 stephan : > ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 appears to fix some important things. > 2009.11.14 was already a tremendous improvement in speed and CPU usage. > > Why should Lucid stay with 2009.4.4, with its known performance > problems on full or fragmented disks, and very high CPU usage? > > The forums are full of user complaints with regards to NTFS > (especially on external drives). In my case upgrading from 2009.4.4 > to 2009.11.14 took transfer of 1.5G to an external NTFS HD from one > hour (2009.4.4) to less than a minute (2009.11.4). > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1362726 > > Can we spare everyone the pain and go to 2010.1.16 in the next release? > > -- > 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 > I'd second this. I've done some (admittedly unscientific) testing running two VirtualBox VMs concurrently off the same NTFS disk* (Karmic and Windows 7 on a Lucid host). With 2009.4.4 there was significant lag; programs and menus took a noticeable time to appear. After updating to 2010.1.16 both are purring along nicely, even when the host has disk activity (such as aptitude installing a kernel update) which previously made a single VM lag. Considering how trivial it was to install from source it can't be difficult to include in Lucid? Or do we need to file a request somewhere? Jonathon * I have a couple of reasons for this. One, I can defrag the disk images as to save space I have them set as dynamic allocation. Two, I can access the machines in Windows when I have to. -- 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
Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 appears to fix some important things. 2009.11.14 was already a tremendous improvement in speed and CPU usage. Why should Lucid stay with 2009.4.4, with its known performance problems on full or fragmented disks, and very high CPU usage? The forums are full of user complaints with regards to NTFS (especially on external drives). In my case upgrading from 2009.4.4 to 2009.11.14 took transfer of 1.5G to an external NTFS HD from one hour (2009.4.4) to less than a minute (2009.11.4). http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1362726 Can we spare everyone the pain and go to 2010.1.16 in the next release? -- 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
