On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:51:13PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Well, what's unfortunate is that HAL got deprecated long before replacements
> for all its parts were ready. KDE already waited for quite some time before
> implementing the replacements for HAL and was heavily criticized for that
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:23:10PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Huh? KDE trunk (4.6) already uses XRandR backlight setting in PowerDevil:
>>
http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdebase/workspace/powerdevil/daemon/backends/upower/xrandrbrightness.cpp?revision=1194096&view=
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:23:10PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Huh? KDE trunk (4.6) already uses XRandR backlight setting in PowerDevil:
> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdebase/workspace/powerdevil/daemon/backends/upower/xrandrbrightness.cpp?revision=1194096&view=markup
> and it appears to work
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> It might not to work for proprietary drivers, but that's those drivers'
>> problem. KDE basically requires XRandR since at least 4.0.
>>
>
> this is a fairly new thing, AIUI:
>
> http://mjg59.livejournal.com/1271
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:44 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >>
> >> > * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> >> >
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:44 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> > * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
>> > any luck).
>>
>> Not without a pile of X changes, which themselves
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:32:26 +0100
> Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2010/11/12 Kevin Fenzi :
>> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that
>> > people are actively working on?
>>
>> How about removing some old u
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:32:09PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > [2.691809] acpi_fde: failed to evaluate _FDE
> > [2.692151] Floppy drive(s): fd0 is 1.44M
> > [2.724514] floppy: loaded
> >
> > /dev/fd0 was created.
>
Yeah, it falls back to the ordinary probing if anything fails.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 21:16:40 -0600,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 21:24:41 -0500,
> Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > (Yes, the messages would be in dmesg.)
>
> [2.691809] acpi_fde: failed to evaluate _FDE
> [2.692151] Floppy drive(s): fd0 is 1.44M
> [2.724514] flop
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 21:24:41 -0500,
Kyle McMartin wrote:
> (Yes, the messages would be in dmesg.)
[2.691809] acpi_fde: failed to evaluate _FDE
[2.692151] Floppy drive(s): fd0 is 1.44M
[2.724514] floppy: loaded
/dev/fd0 was created.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 21:24:41 -0500,
Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:00:55PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2614153
> >
> > I've been running that kernel for a couple of days on one machine
> > with floppies. (I am go
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:00:55PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2614153
>
> I've been running that kernel for a couple of days on one machine
> with floppies. (I am go to switch to -62 tonight.) Two other machines
> I have with floppies are
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:29 -0500,
Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 09:49:42PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>
> And let me know what the output is on your machine (it uses ACPI to
> query the _FDE table in firmware, so hopefully we can only bind to it if
> a floppy is connecte
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:29 -0500,
Kyle McMartin wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin, (and Bruno if you're watching)
>
> Please try this:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2614153
I've been running that kernel for a couple of days on one machine
with floppies. (I am go to switch to -
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 10:11 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> >> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> >> any luck).
> >
> > Only 30 packages left requi
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:44 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> > any luck).
>
> Not without a pile of X changes, which themselves are blocking on
> upstream k
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 09:49:42PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:33:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Me. And I'm already angry at having to manually modprobe floppy in rc.local:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567533
>
> If you're "angry" about a minor
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:26:58 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote
>
>> You still need a timeout to avoid waiting for ever for the root
>> filesystem to appear when one of the PV has been disconnected from
>> the system.
>
> If you cannot assemble the root file system, what
Hi.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:26:58 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote
> You still need a timeout to avoid waiting for ever for the root
> filesystem to appear when one of the PV has been disconnected from
> the system.
If you cannot assemble the root file system, what is init supposed to
do instead of wa
Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> An example of the way I see it working is like this:
> Say you have a Volume Group VG1 across two PVs, PV1 and PV2, containing
> Logical
> Volume LV1 containing the root filesystem.
> You have a trigger rule saying "When you see the whole of VG1, activate LV1
> inside it
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On the positive side, it doesn't do anything terribly complicated, it
> > just ships a single HAL rules file which does this:
> >
> > > type="strlist">access_control > key="access_control.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:33:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Me. And I'm already angry at having to manually modprobe floppy in rc.local:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567533
If you're "angry" about a minor inconvenience then I think you might
want to seek counsel, but for what
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
Me.
gopher://www.calcforge.org/1/
Web version: http://www.calcforge.org:70/
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kio_gopher
(I don't use uucp though, but I see from Kevin Fenzi's reply that there's at
least one person using that t
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On the positive side, it doesn't do anything terribly complicated, it
> just ships a single HAL rules file which does this:
>
> type="strlist">access_control key="access_control.file"
>type="copy_property">linux.device_file
>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:32:26 +0100
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/11/12 Kevin Fenzi :
> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that
> > people are actively working on?
>
> How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
> some people starts to
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:53:40AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
> > > to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
> > > "ethX" to clearly labeled "lomX" matching the chassis silkscreen.
> > But why ???l
2010/11/20 Richard W.M. Jones :
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:57:16PM +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
>> users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
>
> An administrator might decide to enable one of these accounts, b
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:57:16PM +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
> users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
An administrator might decide to enable one of these accounts, but I'd
say that would be pretty unwise.
Hi.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:50:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote
>
Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:32:26PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
> some people starts to gather firewood in the stack :))
>
> Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
>
> sync:x:5:0:sync:/sbin:/bin/sync
Someone at Red Hat asked me once wh
Hi,
2010/11/12 Kevin Fenzi :
> Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> are actively working on?
How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
some people starts to gather firewood in the stack :))
Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
sync:x:5:0:sync:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 14:15 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
>> I realize that most people on this mailing list are focused on
>> infrastructure and server/desktop usage.
>>
>> But some of us are looking forward to using future Fedora releases on
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 10:37 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 21:46 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> >
> > > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.i686
> > > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.x86_64
> > I
> > don't know e
Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 21:46 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>
> > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.i686
> > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.x86_64
> I
> don't know exactly what that is, but I can't imagine it'd be terribly
> hard to port
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.i686
> libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.x86_64
This one's a bit tricky, as it does something unique that you can't do
any other way (it lets you program Logitech Harmony remote controls -
Logitech only provide a too
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 14:15 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> I realize that most people on this mailing list are focused on
> infrastructure and server/desktop usage.
>
> But some of us are looking forward to using future Fedora releases on
> tablets in vehicular infotainment systems.
>
> To this en
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:06:17PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:32:37AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> I've had a few off-list conversations with various community members
> >> about this. One thing that came up w
2010/11/19 Linuxguy123 :
> I realize that most people on this mailing list are focused on
> infrastructure and server/desktop usage.
>
> But some of us are looking forward to using future Fedora releases on
> tablets in vehicular infotainment systems.
>
> To this end, what are the plans for releasi
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:24:26AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Also, I gotta say, it really shouldn't be LAN on Motherboard, since it's
> just an adapter, not actually a whole lan. It should clearly be NIC on
> Motherboard, or "nom". And then you could silkscreen lolcats on to the
> servers, whi
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:32:37AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>> I've had a few off-list conversations with various community members
>> about this. One thing that came up was that the alternative namespace is
>> necessary, but also that "lom" i
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:48:09AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> In any case, is this going to be something that can be disabled easily?
> We have something like 18 years of Linux networking history that says
> ethernet devices are "eth[0-9]+", and I'm not really interested in
> auditing all the tool
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:32:37AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> I've had a few off-list conversations with various community members
> about this. One thing that came up was that the alternative namespace is
> necessary, but also that "lom" is a sub-optimal choice. One idea that
> did come up was si
I realize that most people on this mailing list are focused on
infrastructure and server/desktop usage.
But some of us are looking forward to using future Fedora releases on
tablets in vehicular infotainment systems.
To this end, what are the plans for releasing Meego as part of Fedora in
F15 ?
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Will NM finally be able to do bridging?
:drool:
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/18/2010 8:09, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2010 at 12:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> [...]
>> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
>> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
>> main hard disk will not m
On Monday, 15 November 2010 at 12:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
[...]
> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
> main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
> contrarian user giving
Once upon a time, Jon Masters said:
> I've had a few off-list conversations with various community members
> about this. One thing that came up was that the alternative namespace is
> necessary,
I'm not sold on this, but:
> but also that "lom" is a sub-optimal choice. One idea that
> did come up
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 09:24 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:53:40AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > > biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
> > > > to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
> > > > "ethX" to clearly l
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:57:19 +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 16.11.2010 11:04, Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a):
> > Le Lun 15 novembre 2010 23:51, Karel Klic a écrit :
> >> Major advantage of the retrace server is that you can get a good
> >> backtraces even from unfresh coredumps.
> >
> > And why can't t
Dne 16.11.2010 11:04, Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a):
> Le Lun 15 novembre 2010 23:51, Karel Klic a écrit :
>> Major advantage of the retrace server is that you can get a good
>> backtraces even from unfresh coredumps.
>
> And why can't this be done with debuginfofs ? It's the same data.
GDB pretty pri
Le Mar 16 novembre 2010 00:15, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit :
>
> On 11/15/2010 09:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> Nobody has yet proven that LVM is a problem
>
> Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
> usage of lvm by default
The con was the assumption tha
Le Lun 15 novembre 2010 23:51, Karel Klic a écrit :
>
> Dne 15.11.2010 23:04, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett
>>> wrote:
>> Leaving the retracing at the user's end of things means that
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:49:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> > Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> > > Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
> > > that (at runtime) is a mixture of GP
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:26:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:15:38PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
> > usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
> > for
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:23:37AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 10:11 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> >> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> >> any luck).
> >
> > Only 30 packages lef
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:15:38PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
> usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
> for the novice end user?
When the novice end user realizes that they made s
On 11/15/2010 09:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Nobody has yet proven that LVM is a problem
Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
for the novice end user?
JBG
1. http://lists.fedoraproje
Dne 15.11.2010 23:04, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Leaving the retracing at the user's end of things means that the user at
> least has a choice in the matter - I'm unlikely
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> > Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
> > that (at runtime) is a mixture of GPLed and GPL-incompatible code, does
> > sending this coredump to a remote
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:07:11PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Don't we need the entirety of debuginfo in order to be able to include
> parameter and local variable values in the backtrace?
The entirity of it needs to be available, but that's not the same as
requiring the user install it on l
Matthew Garrett píše v Po 15. 11. 2010 v 22:04 +:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett
> > wrote:
> > > How does the user verify that there are no passwords or other personal
> > > information in the core dump?
Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
>> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
>
> Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > How does the user verify that there are no passwords or other personal
> > information in the core dump?
>
> I don't think it really works to ask the user to do that in pra
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>>> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>>> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that pe
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
>> > are actively working on?
>>
>> ABRT with retrace se
Dne 15.11.2010 22:13, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
>> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
>
> How does the user verify that there are no passwords or
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
that (at runtime) is a mixture of GPL
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:14:53PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>> Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
> >>> and more flexi
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> > are actively working on?
>
> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
> running.
Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> are actively working on?
ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
http://fedoraproject.org/wik
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 13:02 +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
>
> Info on this page is completely obsolete!
Yes. Note the prominent line reading:
* Last updated: December 17, 2008
The info
On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
>>> and more flexibility later. LVM provides this.
>> So we agree on disagreeing.
>>
>> Let's go th
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:03:03PM +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> >
> > there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
> > F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
> > by default (filename downcasin
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
> > and more flexibility later. LVM provides this.
>
> So we agree on disagreeing.
>
> Let's go the middle path here what about we default to ext
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > * Some kind of packaged wayland to play with, even if it doesn't do
> > much?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652746
> Which _really_ won't do much at the moment, since we can't build any of
> the demo clients yet. I
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:15:20AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> > code was slow or anything, but simply because it isn't really written in
> > the way
On 11/15/10 8:39 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I assume that OS-X has not trouble with mounting various LinuxFS given
> that it is a *nix breed.
Being unix-ish doesn't really help, you need an actual filesystem driver
for the OS. There is an ext2/ext3 driver for osx (based on the bsd driv
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
Not without a pile of X changes, which themselves are blocking on
upstream kernel changes that I've submitted but which haven't been
merged.
--
M
On 11/15/2010 10:11 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
>> any luck).
>
> Only 30 packages left requiring it, according to repoquery. smolt's
> probably the most interesting o
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
Only 30 packages left requiring it, according to repoquery. smolt's
probably the most interesting one to fix, if anyone's looking for a
project.
> * Some
On 11/15/2010 02:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> > That's the essence of what's being discussed here
>> > laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced
>> > users/sysadmins those that generally know
On 11/15/2010 02:03 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
>> there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
>> F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
>> by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS av
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> That's the essence of what's being discussed here
> laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced
> users/sysadmins those that generally know what lvm is with all it's bells
> and whistles and want t
On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
> F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
> by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS avoids this trap
> and many other issues.
>
> Richa
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:29:06AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
> main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
> contrarian user giving a
On 11/15/2010 11:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
> main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
> contrarian user giving away LVM-formatted U
On 11/14/2010 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
Info on this page is completely obsolete!
> | * Certain filesystem features (ext3 barriers) are unavailable when run
> | on top of LVM.
No longer true, barriers (resp. flush) are fully
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 02:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >LVM's a fantasically useful tool in a wide range of cases, but I don't
> >think that in the*typical* laptop/desktop install any of that
> >functionality ever gets used.
>
>
On 11/15/2010 02:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
LVM's a fantasically useful tool in a wide range of cases, but I don't
think that in the*typical* laptop/desktop install any of that
functionality ever gets used.
That's the essence of what's being discussed here
laptop/desktop/workstation instal
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:42:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a problem of partitions themselves being very inflexible.
> Have said that I don't really understand why you'd ever want to do
> this. "In a consulting environment" you're much more likely to
> encounter some other mech
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:48:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> LVM is important and useful for managing storage. If, in the future, we have
> ZFS-like features in btrfs or whatever, okay, we can talk about getting rid
> of it. But a few-second gain in boot time is really, really, really not
> w
On 11/15/2010 12:00 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>>> and gave 6 of the pa
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We definitely should stop setting up LVM by default on Fedora, because
> it allows us to disable these unnecessary enumeration delays that are
> broken by design anyway.
>
> If we don't have LVM on default installs, we also don'
On 11/14/2010 04:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
>
> I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
> ago.
>
> It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers which are
> required to ensure we only ever write
On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
>> then I could not rem
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:07:28PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> >> [stated advantages snipp
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:38:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> [stated advantages snipped]
>
> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
> from an LVM. Once a portion of the
Once upon a time, Roberto Ragusa said:
> I don't remember if pvmove can use the same PV as src and dest;
> in that case you could avoid the need of an extra disk
> when your PV is just "fragmented".
You can; you have to specify manually the source and destination PEs,
and IIRC there's an extra op
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:03 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
>
>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
ago.
It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers whi
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
> then I could not remove one of the partitions from the clutches
> of the
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
