tailf vs buster

2019-07-11 Thread Reco
Dear list, This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux" package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course. The question is - who should I thank for this? Reco

Re: tailf vs buster

2019-07-11 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: > This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux" > package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course. > The question is - who should I thank for this? The stretch man page says: DESCRIPTION tail

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-11 Thread Reco
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:49:48AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux" > > package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course. > > The question is - who should

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-12 Thread tomas
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote: [...] > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them. You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us. Cheers -- tomás signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-12 Thread Reco
Hi. On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them. > > You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us. On the contrary. I'm pe

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-12 Thread tomas
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them. > > > > You seem to be

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-12 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote: > I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of > the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them. > On the other side though we have some really controversial things like > SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-12 Thread Reco
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote: > > I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of > > the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them. > > On the other side though we have some really c

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-13 Thread Richard Hector
On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say > "forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will > lead to data loss if used without battery-backed stor

Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

2019-07-13 Thread Reco
Hi. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:22:38AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say > > "forced", but note that I didn't say it