On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:43:41PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> >
> >>Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
> >>co
at this says more about you or the people you meet than
anything else.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
that you're willing to give up a freedom for some
functionality. Personally I think the functionality you'd gain is small
compared to the freedom you'd lose, and you obviously feel the same
about my position.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel
ing
able to produce their own signed bootloader or kernel for free is more
or less significant than the benefit of having an operating system that
users can install without firmware reconfiguration.
You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
injustice. Bo
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:08:45PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But you're happy to sacrifice the freedom for people to modify the error
> > text that's provided? What's your threshold?
>
> I&#x
it wont boot anything at all.
But you're happy to sacrifice the freedom for people to modify the error
text that's provided? What's your threshold?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
we could do
things that standardised user enrolment of keys, but I suspect any
solution would end up looking broadly similar to this.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
re boot and want to
prevent my packages from working on systems with it enabled" then yes,
that's clearly a thing you could do. I don't think it's worth discussing
whether it's something that you should do or something that would be
treated as a bug unless someone actual
ng to execute the next
entry in the boot list. An implementation may provide some feedback that
that's the case, but there's no requirement for it to do so, so it's
perfectly valid for it to just fall back to booting Windows with no
notification.
--
Matthew Garrett
thwhile. I can understand objecting to that from a philosophical
perspective, but this is not an unprecedented decision.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
ts about that
> subject.)
Some Windows functionality will be disabled along with secure boot, but
that's not really the point. We've done huge amounts of work to make
Fedora (and Linux in general) work without requiring any firmware
tweaking and people have recognised the val
gt; disabled hardware?
To the best of my knowledge. Of course, if you're using a feature like
Bitlocker that will require secure boot, turning it off will stop
Windows from booting regardless of how it was installed.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:55:42PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> What about on ARM?
The inability for users to enrol keys or disable secure boot means we
have no intention of supporting it on ARM.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Everyone is singing a different tune about these possibilities.
>
> My guesses would have been:
> Yes.
> No.
> Yes.
Your guesses would be wrong.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel
SecureBoot?
No.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
7;m looking at ways to implement a
tool to allow you to automatically whitelist the installed drivers."
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
n examine the
enrolled keys.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
s vs.
> flash drives, etc.).
No, it applies to all media.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
so the only way an attacker will be able to modify
your system is by having physical access to the flash.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:07:13PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > How does the Microsoft OS know that it's being invoked in an
> > unauthorised manner?
> >
>
> Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >> The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
> >
h that
>
> and should be Default:OFF for all others.
How do you distinguish between a non-Microsoft OS and a piece of malware
that will then boot a Microsoft OS?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather
> >than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest
&g
gt; IO?
I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on
Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session
how much RAM are we talking about?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
interest
then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and
spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge
benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
That doesn't seem to contradict me? If we went with this approach then
we'd obviously want to include a CD->USB bootloader, but otherwise it
sounds like there'd be no problem doing a USB install on that hardware.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel
case or if I can fill a Review Request for the infamous
> cdrtools in Fedora:
cdrtools used to link GPLed code with CDDLed code. Such a binary is
undistributable. If it still does that then there's no way for this code
to be distributed by Fedora.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:48:42AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 05/13/2012 02:02 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>
>
> > From a purely practical perspective, the popularity of OS X as a
> > development platform means that we're likely to see a gradual increase
>
velopment platform means that we're likely to see a gradual increase
in the amount of code written to assume LLVM-specific functionality.
People are just going to have to cope.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
is at least 13 years old and more realistically
probably 15. We've already dropped support for x86 hardware that was in
production more recently than that.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
tartup chime, I'm presented with six icons, none of which are Fedora.
> If I boot Mac OS and go to System Preferences > Startup Disk, I have
> only a Mac OS option.
#816288
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin
DisplayPort setup,
and I'm trying to hunt it down - it seems to affect most modern Macs
with Radeons.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:39:20AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Ok, I'll have to look at the CD issue. Can you report the initramfs
> problem?
Figured out the CD problem, I'll push a fix to git. Looking at the
initramfs problem now.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.uc
I file for bugzilla?
Ah, sorry, I should have specified - this will only work on machines
with 64-bit firmware, which is basically any machine released after
mid-2007. My fault.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapro
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:08:39PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll have to look at the CD issue. Can you report the initramfs
> > problem?
>
> Yes. What component?
Put it against the kernel
Ok, I'll have to look at the CD issue. Can you report the initramfs
problem?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Ok, once hitch with this. Due to an error on my part it's possible that
the Fedora logo option may not work. In that case, plesae try one of the
other "EFI Boot" options.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
Success. Hurrah! Do nothing more.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
rt an
architecture then its maintainers need to prove that they can maintain
it.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
efore they can become primary architecture.
Yes, in the same way that they need someone in the kernel team to build
them a kernel. It's a package. It's under active development. It just
needs someone on the architecture to write the code.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
ting embedded devices where Anaconda makes no sense then
that's fine, but if it's supporting other hardware classes then it needs
to have a working Anaconda. I've no idea why this is controversial.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:54:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 07:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
> >support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
> So FE
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:33:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 07:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
> >https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
)
* mmaslano (7)
* jwb (4)
* adamw (3)
* gholms (3)
* cmurf (1)
* pknirsch (1)
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:22:38PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/19/2012 05:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Matthew,
>
> Could you add comments addressing the need for documentation and website
> conten
Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
rchitecture?
> Infrastructure is able to provide adequate power, cooling and rack
> space, additionally there is enough storage to accommodate the
> additional architecture.
Ditto here.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
atures, heavily changing
> code or switching behavior.
>
> Do we need to enact the fallback plan here and move the entire feature
> to F18?
Process would tend to suggest so. Thomas, what's involved in reverting
it at this point? We should probably discuss this in fesco next
Is the release criteria malleable when it comes to the influence of
> new architectures in general, in terms of what that might allow the
> distribution to do that it can't do on the existing architectures?
I'd guess there could be exceptions for sufficiently compelling cases.
I'm not in
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 01:34:00AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/19/2012 01:22 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, because it's not a requirement. In theory an SA could be perfectly
> > suited for PA promotion without any real involvement with the Fedora
> > communi
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:46:16PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 06:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Not really. The proposed criteria provide strong guidance. If you meet
> >them all then you're probably fine. But the point isn't to be slaves to
>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42:58AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On 04/18/2012 09:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that [being part of
> > the Fedora community]. Your meetings happen on the pho
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The kernel team may have their view skewed by how likely they think it
> >is that a given architecture will be likely to force additional
> >rebuilds. So y
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:04:24PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 06:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> [snip]
> >>What if some forms of the hardware are desktop capable, others are
> >>not, but the community only has an interest in supporting headless
> &
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:34:11PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 02:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >If you manage that then I think most of the problems you're worried
> >about go away. It'll be obvious to everyone whether or not you're ready
> >
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:18:34PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 03:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must be
> >>consistent? I understand Anaconda installations is considered a
> >>part of this..
have as if you're a primary architecture.
If you manage that then I think most of the problems you're worried
about go away. It'll be obvious to everyone whether or not you're ready
to be a primary architecture at any given point. Don't worry about the
details. Just be part o
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:58:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:04 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Option 2: Disable ptrace for everything except direct child processes.
> > Allows the common case of running a task directly under a tool like gdb
>
a real disk
> >
> > Adobe Flash uses /tmp to store video stream data.
>
> s/uses/used to/ ... it stopped doing that a while ago.
It still does, it just unlinks them. They still take up space.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
want to be confined.
> What about the dbus session bus, Can firefox_t start a gdb session via the
> session but to get around the confinement?
I don't think so, no.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:26:50AM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> [...]
>
> > To a first approximation, simply auditing the distribution for anything
> > that opens files or reads information from the network and forbidding
> > them
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:27:12AM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le mardi 10 avril 2012 à 02:57 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> > Ok, so if anything that's already a likely target of attack is unable to
> > initiate ptrace or start a process that can ptrace, what real ex
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 05:06 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> And guess what I use these tools, and I just execute setsebool
> >> deny_
have been explicitly started
by the user rather than from some more confined application?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
of
core Firefox functionality and still calling the end result Firefox.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
xists now seems pretty
different to what we approved.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > There is no path to sure success. That's not how this works.
>
> On the flip side I don't believe it's unachievable, I hope I'm
aller teams and
> > is subject to overall approval by the Fedora Engineering Steering
> > Committee, and additional criteria may be imposed if felt to be
> > necessary.
>
> Let's make the list exhaustive; there needs to be a path to sure
> success. This means establishing a complete procedure where when an
> SA formally applies to become PA, acceptance means there is a
> definitive set of steps needed to get there. This is one of the
> major reasons for developing these criteria. Put another way:
There is no path to sure success. That's not how this works.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:11:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm planning on moving this to the Wiki (as a draft) at the end of the
> week, so if people have any further feedback please let me know.
Now at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Re
;s intended to run Windows, so I suspect that's going to spread
fairly quickly unless vendors want to produce multiple firmware
implementations for otherwise similar hardware.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 07:27:13PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> On 03/28/2012 06:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Oh no. Nobody's seriously considering UEFI ARM platforms without ACPI,
> > are they?
>
> Wait, I thought there was some kind of "flattened device tr
other decade or two something more exciting than UEFI will replace
> UEFI and folks will mail about how things were better with UEFI!
Oh no. Nobody's seriously considering UEFI ARM platforms without ACPI,
are they?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
I'm planning on moving this to the Wiki (as a draft) at the end of the
week, so if people have any further feedback please let me know.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
opting UEFI as the standard firmware interface, which is BIOS-like in
the sense that you're describing. Richard was explicitly talking about
BIOS-as-in-x86-asm-and-int-calls being preferable to UEFI. There's no
real way ARM could implement the latter.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj
effective.
>
> This is getting way off-topic, but... most linux-capable ARM chips
> support a BIOS in the "pc" sense. Vendors choose not to do it that
> way.
Given that the "pc" sense of BIOS includes having arguments returned in
x86 registers, I really don'
er things Adam listed as
unsupported, don't have 3D engines or they're powervr.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:26:58PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The expectation would be that the architecture maintainers have fixed
> > everything before moving to being a primary architecture, so this should
> >
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a
> > primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it'
chitecture. The better you can demonstrate that in advance,
the easier the process will be.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
able any time soon. Come back when (if
> ever) you have hardware which has comparable speed to x86.
I think your point's been pretty clearly made now. It doesn't further
the conversation to repeat it in reply to every message in the thread.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@
e've made sure everyone's
given feedback. I'd also like to see as much of the conversation take
place in public as possible in order to make sure we can pick up the
reasoning behind any decisions.
Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
too unreasonable.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 04:37:17PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 4) All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
> > kernel SRPM and enabled by default in the spec file. Each kernel must be
> &
tatus will require agreement
from the Fedora infrastructure, release engineering, kernel and
installer teams and is subject to overall approval by the Fedora
Steering Committee.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:13:15PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 04:34:04PM +0200, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
>
> > is this just my BIOS or there is some sort of broken power management in
> > grub2
>
> Your BIOS.
I should probably elaborate on th
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 04:34:04PM +0200, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> is this just my BIOS or there is some sort of broken power management in grub2
Your BIOS.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
>
> Why not?
>
> For example, I use a commercial backup program that makes extensive use
> of IPC
s the case,
> we have sysrq=0 in /etc/sysctl.conf
No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
t by simply constraining it to a very simple case.
Create more partitions and disk utility stops wanting to be your friend.
Trying to handle hybrid media in the larger number of storage cases we
have to support is a non-starter.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:02:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:06:31AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> EFI Boot= Grub prompt, no menu
> >
> > Can you type "root
ine
That'll be a kernel bug of some description...
> EFI Boot= Grub menu, loads from stick for ~6 seconds, then beeping, must
> force shutdown.
This too. Can you try adding "noefi" to the kernel command line for
both?
CSM boots aren't expected to work in the slightest.
--
far.
Problems include the fact that compiling llvm with gcc 4.7 result in
-Wuninitialized (enabled by -Wall) causing clang to segfault.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:34:22PM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> Den 28 februari 2012 18:22 skrev Matthew Garrett :
> > Yes, F17's current media should be pretty close to working.
> >
>
> Is this on native/basic Apple EFI, not reFit?
Yes. I'm mostly working on the
ould be pretty close to working.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
uot;reject everything") is
going to be somewhat arbitrary.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
would apply to a switch to
llvm.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:47:03AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 10:34 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
> >You may have been working with them since the earliy nineties, but the
> >feature was only intro
making the transition happen.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
301 - 400 of 732 matches
Mail list logo
