On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:48 -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 00:52 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> >> We are hosting another one of our regular Fedora 15 hardfp Virtual
> >> Fedora Activity Day today Friday July 8th,
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 23:32 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Or in other words: configuration via command line arguments or
> > environment variables sucks.
I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Linux have done this
for dozens of
Compose started at Sun Jul 10 08:15:02 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
389-ds-base-1.2.9-0.2.a2.fc16.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.25()(64bit)
389-ds-base-1.2.9-0.2.a2.fc16.x86_64 requires
libnetsnmpmibs.so.25()(64bit)
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> We're going to deliver one after this armv7hl bootstrap. What we're
> going to do is get koji running with a minimal mock (or even once we get
> to just mock) and then re-run the bootstrap scripts
> automatically/rebuild the RPMs and hope tha
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> It's becoming clear that several points do need raising with FESCo:
> * Fedora should (IMO) institute mandatory mass rebuilds. Either every
> cycle, or every other cycle. I've briefly discussed with Dennis.
> Bootstrapping (and si
Matt Domsch wrote:
> But the procedure lacks a key component -
> identifying, through Fedora Project-maintained efforts (and not my own
> private efforts), the list of pacakges that FTBFS. That could be a
> rel-eng mass rebuild run. That could be a stand-alone rebuild effort.
> I'm not going to d
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Linux have done this
> for dozens of years, and it's the way countless sysadmins know and love.
> "Sucks" might be true from the point of view of "hey look at this great
> thing I just
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> * Fedora should (IMO) institute mandatory mass rebuilds. Either every
> cycle, or every other cycle. I've briefly discussed with Dennis.
> Bootstrapping (and similar activities) are far easier with a clean set
> of deps, which is
Ok folks I know everyone is busy but it's time to actually sit down and write a
driver for the ATI Radeon card used in a lot of laptops. This has been a
topic/bug in the forums since 2008 without being resolved and the work-arounds
aren't working. The garbled display is really getting to be over
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> In this case there are sound
> technical arguments against configuration by command line argument or
> environment variable
I haven't seen any, just statements that they are somehow "bad" and the
new way is "better".
Command line arguments and/or envir
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Heiko Adams
wrote:
>
> as far as I remember the versions of firefox and thunderbird have
> allways been sinchronuos at their latest stable version. So I'd like to
> know for personal interest if there are reasons that would deny updating
> thunderbird packages to v
Hey,
On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Improvement means change, and change will inevitably upset some people
> who would prefer to do things in exactly the same way that they always
> have done.
I will have to slightly disagree. If improvement does indeed come with
the change
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:23:21 -0400,
ceco wrote:
> Ok folks I know everyone is busy but it's time to actually sit down and write
> a driver for the ATI Radeon card used in a lot of laptops. This has been a
> topic/bug in the forums since 2008 without being resolved and the
> work-arounds a
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:19AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Command line arguments and/or environment variables allow script-based
> startup to adapt to current conditions without having to edit a
> configuration file. Now maybe you could argue that every program should
> figure out relevant t
Thank you I will provide the information and fill out a bug report. There have
been a few bug report on this issue but will try again.
--Original Message--
From: Bruno Wolff III
To: Cecil Funderburk
Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: us...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Garble
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Linux have done this
> > for dozens of years, and it's the way countless sysadmins know and love.
> > "Sucks" might be t
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 23:32 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>> On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
>> > Or in other words: configuration via command line arguments or
>> > environment variables sucks.
>
> I disagree. It doesn't
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:15:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > The big kernel lock doesn't suck. It's the way SMP UNIX did things for
> > dozens of years, and it's the way
On 07/10/2011 05:46 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 23:32 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Or in other words: configuration via command line arguments or
environment variables sucks.
I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Li
On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Linux have done this
for dozens of years, and it's the way countless sysadmins know and love.
"Sucks" might be true from the point of vi
On 07/10/2011 01:49 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:19AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Command line arguments and/or environment variables allow script-based
startup to adapt to current conditions without having to edit a
configuration file. Now maybe you could argue that
On 07/10/2011 04:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:15:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
The big kernel lock doesn't suck. It's the way SMP UNIX did things f
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> The suggestion isn't that having the options is wrong
Well, that's what you said before (conveniently snipped from your
reply). You compared CLI args/env vars to the BKL as something to be
eliminated; specifically, you said (and I quoted):
> In this cas
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:33:35PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 01:49 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The suggestion isn't that having the options is wrong, it's that having
> >them as the primary means of configuration is poor design. If your
> >entire configuration takes the form of a
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> These scripts don't sanitise input beforehand. What happens if I'm
> logged in as root, change IFS and then do /etc/init.d/nfs restart? Using
> shell scripts for this is just a bad idea.
Please cite how many BZs there have been about root doing this. O
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 21:59 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 23:32 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> >> > Or in other words: configuration via command line arguments or
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:43:30PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > * Fedora should (IMO) institute mandatory mass rebuilds. Either every
> > cycle, or every other cycle. I've briefly discussed with Dennis.
> > Bootstrapping (an
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:23 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:43:30PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > > * Fedora should (IMO) institute mandatory mass rebuilds. Either every
> > > cycle, or every other cy
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > The suggestion isn't that having the options is wrong
>
> Well, that's what you said before (conveniently snipped from your
> reply). You compared CLI args/env vars to the BKL as something
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:19:05PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> If root decides to shoot themselves in the foot, they're going to find a
> way. That is again an argument at the extreme theoretical end of
> possibility and not the common case. You are just making !$#@ up now;
> you have yet to com
Hi,
I'm a sysadmin who likes when things change for the better. I also like
systemd. Sure, I read this list and stay informed, but my employer is a
RHEL subscriber so for non-hobby purposes I only need to deal with
change every few years, which is manageable. (SSSD is a "problem" of
this kind in R
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:31:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> It doesn't just benefit bootstrap either. Take (random example) the
> recent CFLAGS change in redhat-rpm-config. What should happen at that
> point is that every package is automatically rebuilt. Should it cause a
> problem? No. But ha
On 07/10/2011 05:35 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
The suggestion isn't that having the options is wrong
Well, that's what you said before (conveniently snipped from your
reply). You compared CLI
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:31:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > It doesn't just benefit bootstrap either. Take (random example) the
> > recent CFLAGS change in redhat-rpm-config. What should happen at that
> > point is that every packag
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 22:44 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's certainly true that we could do more to identify ftbfs situations
> earlier, but we've had mass rebuilds in most recent releases. Random
> failures years down the line really aren't a realistic concern.
I can think of specific cas
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> "Configuration by", not overriding configuration. It's a mistake to have
> your daemon's configuration be handled by a shell script that's sourced
> into existing environment.
You still have yet to cite your "sound technical arguments" for this.
All I h
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> Solutions that make it difficult for root to shoot themselves in the
> foot are better than solutions that don't. Make everything possible, but
> make dangerous things harder than safe things. That's entirely in line
> with Unix philosophy.
When such "
On Sat, 09.07.11 23:31, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On 07/08/2011 03:57 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> On 07/08/2011 08:23 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>> So, I'd suggest strongly not to try starting all services from a single
> >
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:17:49PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > And that's a bad thing to do. You're sourcing your configuration in an
> > unsanitised environment. There's a huge number of ways that this can go
> > wrong depending on the admin's local c
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 22:44 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > It's certainly true that we could do more to identify ftbfs situations
> > earlier, but we've had mass rebuilds in most recent releases. Random
> > failures years down t
On Sat, 09.07.11 23:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>> So, I'd suggest strongly not to try starting all services from a single
> >>> file. There's a reason why we explicitly forbid having more than one
> >>> ExecStart= in a unit file (except for Type=oneshot services).
> >>
> >> Th
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:11:52PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's certainly true that we could do more to identify ftbfs situations
> > earlier, but we've had mass rebuilds in most recent releases. Random
> > failures years down the
On Sun, 10.07.11 05:46, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 23:32 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >
> > On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > > Or in other words: configuration via command line arguments or
> > > environment variables sucks.
>
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:11:52PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Garrett >wrote:
> > > It's certainly true that we could do more to identify ftbfs situations
> > > earlier, but we've had mass r
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:59:36PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Finding that something that didn't build, hasn't been changed and still
> > doesn't build isn't terribly random :) We could do better, but
> > introducing more mass rebuild
On Sun, 10.07.11 11:49, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > In this case there are sound
> > technical arguments against configuration by command line argument or
> > environment variable
>
> I haven't seen any, just statements that they are
On Sun, 10.07.11 13:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Improvement means change, and change will inevitably upset some people
> > who would prefer to do things in exactly the same way that they always
> > have done.
On 07/10/2011 09:38 PM, Alexander Boström wrote:
> I'm sceptical of Jóhann's FOO="foo=4711" solution. (Nothing to do with
> integers vs. strings, btw, non-set shell variables has always had a
> default value of the empty string.)
It achieves afaict the behavior the maintainer wanted if it was up t
On 07/10/2011 07:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
ell variables has always had a
>> default value of the empty string.)
>
> It achieves afaict the behavior the maintainer wanted if it was up to me
> I would have done this ( whole nfs ) completly differently
>
> Dropped
>
> ExecStartPr
On Sun, 10.07.11 15:15, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
> > The big kernel lock doesn't suck. It's the way SMP UNIX did things for
> > dozens of years, and it's the way countless kernel hackers know and
> > love. "Sucks" might be true from the point of view of "hey look at this
> >
Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
> ...
> > So one service can not have multiple daemons?
>
> As mentioned earlier, it can, but we strongly advise you not to do this,
> since it makes it hard to supervise and monitor a service, to restart it
> when it crashes, to collect exit statusses, t
On 07/10/2011 11:16 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 07:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> ell variables has always had a
>>> default value of the empty string.)
>> It achieves afaict the behavior the maintainer wanted if it was up to me
>> I would have done this ( whole nfs ) compl
On 07/10/2011 07:31 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> Let's just aggree on disagreeing about this approach anyway the last
> unit file I submitted does what Steve and you and perhaps many others
> want's it to do afaik...
>
To be clear - I have as yet no views on systemd unit files et
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Genes MailLists wrote:
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:02:38
From: Genes MailLists
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Subject: Re: systemd: Is it wrong?
On 07/10/2011 07:31 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Let's just aggree on disagreeing about this approach anyw
On 07/11/2011 12:02 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> >
>To be clear - I have as yet no views on systemd unit files et al here
> - just saying its healthy to keep things coherent. So my comment is
> limited to your specific suggestion of breaking things apart.
Hum I guess we have a bit of miscom
On 07/10/2011 06:47 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 09.07.11 23:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> So, I'd suggest strongly not to try starting all services from a single
> file. There's a reason why we explicitly forbid having more than one
> ExecStart= in a un
On 07/10/2011 04:32 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:46:18AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. It doesn't suck. It's the way UNIX and Linux have done this
>>> for dozens of years, and it's the way countless sysadmins
On Sun, 10.07.11 20:59, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > What are the benefits of systemd - other than it is the new
> > fantastic, wonderful latest gizmo!
> Lennart, could you please answer this question? Because if you can't we should
> drop systemd from Fedora... IMHO..
systemd h
On Sun, 10.07.11 23:31, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
>
> > ...
> > > So one service can not have multiple daemons?
> >
> > As mentioned earlier, it can, but we strongly advise you not to do this,
> > since it makes it hard to supervise and moni
On 07/10/2011 07:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 10.07.11 13:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
>>> Improvement means change, and change will inevitably upset some people
>>> who would prefer to do things
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:59:05PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 04:32 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> > What are the benefits of systemd - other than it is the new fantastic,
> > wonderful latest gizmo!
> Lennart, could you please answer this question? Because if you can't we should
> drop
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> Please follow the packaging guidelines [1][2][3] when packaging and
> shipping the unit files and remember to either drop or subpackage the
> legacy sysv init script ...
> ...
I would say that this should be formalized in Fedora guidelines.
I w
On 07/10/2011 07:31 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 11:16 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 07/10/2011 07:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> ell variables has always had a
default value of the empty string.)
>>> It achieves afaict the behavior the maintainer wanted if
On 07/10/2011 09:17 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 10.07.11 20:59, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>> What are the benefits of systemd - other than it is the new
>>> fantastic, wonderful latest gizmo!
>
>> Lennart, could you please answer this question? Because if you can't
On 07/10/2011 09:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:59:05PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> On 07/10/2011 04:32 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> What are the benefits of systemd - other than it is the new fantastic,
>>> wonderful latest gizmo!
>> Lennart, could you please answer t
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:40:51PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 09:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Systemd has been through a far more elaborate process of acceptance than
> > pretty much any other feature in Fedora history. Fesco spent an extended
> > period of time discussing i
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 22:40:51 Steve Dickson wrote:
> So did that "elaborate process of acceptance" include the Fedora
> community or maybe the Linux community or possibly the Business
> community.
You seem to be very late to the party.
--
Garry Williams
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On 07/10/2011 10:58 PM, Garry T. Williams wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 22:40:51 Steve Dickson wrote:
>> So did that "elaborate process of acceptance" include the Fedora
>> community or maybe the Linux community or possibly the Business
>> community.
>
> You seem to be very late to the party
On 07/10/2011 09:39 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
Completely and having administrators add and to set these values
manually in /etc/sysctl.conf as I mentioned in comment 30.
>>>I don't agree with this approach actually. Doing it this way means
>>> that we now have dependen
Matthew Garrett writes:
> These scripts don't sanitise input beforehand. What happens if I'm
> logged in as root, change IFS and then do /etc/init.d/nfs restart?
Nothing, because the shell always sets IFS to the default on startup.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key finger
70 matches
Mail list logo
