On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I was kinda hoping to just let that die a quiet death, but since this
> thread has been thoroughly revived - I would've worded it differently if
> I'd thought about it at all, and I'm sorry for that, it was a silly way
> to put things. That
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 12:36 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 04:19 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Oh by the way:
> >
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
> >> familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support mi
On 11/18/2012 04:19 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Oh by the way:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support minimal
memory installs, and we should be better than 'winbloze':
https://lists.f
On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 00:43 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> > Dne 18/11/12 22:19, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> >>> Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
> >>> familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support minimal
> >>> memory installs,
Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 18/11/12 22:19, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>>> Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
>>> familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support minimal
>>> memory installs, and we should be better than 'winbloze':
>>>
>>> https://lists.fed
Dne 18/11/12 22:19, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>> Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
>> familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support minimal
>> memory installs, and we should be better than 'winbloze':
>>
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/d
Oh by the way:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Meanwhile, our trusty European punctuation-less shit-stirrer (sound
> familiar, anyone?) is still saying we suck if we can't support minimal
> memory installs, and we should be better than 'winbloze':
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2003
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 19:19 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This thread continues to get more absurd. Everyone agrees it would be
> good to make the installer as efficient as possible. It is open source
> code. Check it out from git and go to work. Patches to
> anaconda-devel-list. The anaconda
On 2012-11-12 12:59, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore said:
El Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:05 +0100
Matej Cepl escribió:
> a) Why installer requires 2-4 times more memory than any other
> program running on my computer (and the software you use on it
could
> be a good example of
Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore said:
> El Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:05 +0100
> Matej Cepl escribió:
> > a) Why installer requires 2-4 times more memory than any other
> > program running on my computer (and the software you use on it could
> > be a good example of SOHO server)?
>
> My email client
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:05 +0100
Matej Cepl escribió:
> On 2012-11-09, 14:30 GMT, David Cantrell wrote:
> > Just to cite similar complaints I see from time to time... It
> > irritates me that people think it's a problem that in 2012 they
> > can't
On Seg, 2012-11-12 at 08:49 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 08:45 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > And there was a third option ... port over the old anaconda to the F18
> > changes. (so you'd have less changes).
>
> Which would have taken just about as long to get working, and would
> delay t
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 05:58:01PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> How so? You'd have to just port over the other layers to work with the
> new stuff and in F19 focus on the UI.
> Now you had to do both at the same time with the same amount of man power.
I haven't looked at the new code, but I've spent a
On 11/12/2012 08:58 AM, drago01 wrote:
How so? You'd have to just port over the other layers to work with the
new stuff and in F19 focus on the UI.
Now you had to do both at the same time with the same amount of man power.
Changes in the dracut environment broke assumptions in the runtime
envi
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 08:45 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> And there was a third option ... port over the old anaconda to the F18
>> changes. (so you'd have less changes).
>
>
> Which would have taken just about as long to get working, and would delay
> th
On 11/12/2012 08:45 AM, drago01 wrote:
And there was a third option ... port over the old anaconda to the F18
changes. (so you'd have less changes).
Which would have taken just about as long to get working, and would
delay the newui move further.
But that's OK, you can keep banging that drum
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 10:01 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jesse,
>> To be fair - gnome/kde importing something into rawhide/branched
>> that's not finished doesn't shut down everyone else's ability to test
>> the distro
>>
>>
>> I think it is
On 11/11/2012 10:01 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
Jesse,
To be fair - gnome/kde importing something into rawhide/branched
that's not finished doesn't shut down everyone else's ability to test
the distro
I think it is disingenuous to talk about another distro using anaconda -
b/c the only other o
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Nov 10, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Fedora is just one of the downstream users of Anaconda. It is incorrect
to assume that the upstream Anaconda development can be dictated solely
by Fedora, any more than upstre
On Nov 10, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Fedora is just one of the downstream users of Anaconda. It is incorrect
>> to assume that the upstream Anaconda development can be dictated solely
>> by Fedora, any more than upstream RPM development can be dictated sole
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
[snip]
> You're very wrong here. Memory is *the* key limiting resource for
> VMs, particularly when people want to pack as many VMs into a system
> as possible. If the minimum required for an OS goes from 256 -> 512MB,
> then the numbe
On 2012-11-10, 19:03 GMT, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The fact that even *Ubuntu*, of all distros, requires less RAM than we
> do should ring a HUGE alarm bell!
That’s unfortunate side-effect of rpm having file dependencies ... the
matrix of possible dependencies apt-get has to resolve is by the order
Le Sam 10 novembre 2012 11:57, drago01 a écrit :
> Yeah but the amount of memory needed for installation is hardly
> relevant here .. you install once (with a higher memory allocation)
> and scale down afterwards.
Does not work with organisations that charge projects their top vm
resource use (y
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora is just one of the downstream users of Anaconda. It is incorrect
> to assume that the upstream Anaconda development can be dictated solely
> by Fedora, any more than upstream RPM development can be dictated solely
> by Fedora.
If you want to be truly independent of F
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Same outfit here, and they also use Ubuntu, but it's nothing to do with
> system requirements, just broader hardware support through non-free
> drivers and the simple fact that it's the most popular desktop
> general-user distro. Ubuntu 12.04 cites 384MB minimum for a 32-bi
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Or are you seriously suggesting that a sensible direction for Fedora is
> to consider the requirements of nine year old hardware and attempt to
> adjust our software to match?
Why not? High-end hardware should have a lifespan of at least a decade. It
obviously won't be hi
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:59:22 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Oh, god, I'm pulling a Kevin with this list spamming, but this is
> > just too glorious not to post. I couldn't resist taking a trip in
> > the wayback machine. Here we are in Fedoraland, 2003:
> > https://lists.f
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Oh, god, I'm pulling a Kevin with this list spamming, but this is just
> too glorious not to post. I couldn't resist taking a trip in the wayback
> machine. Here we are in Fedoraland, 2003:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2003-December . What do
> we find?
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> Kevin manufactures today don't built hardware to last more then 3 years
> tops and actually the industry is moving towards to make them unfixable
> as well
> ( cheaper to jus throw it away and give you a new one )
>
> I think Germany is actually the only country that
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 02:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
>> > requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
>>
>> People thinking like you are the reason why entire
Am 10.11.2012 11:57, schrieb drago01:
> Yeah but the amount of memory needed for installation is hardly
> relevant here .. you install once (with a higher memory allocation)
> and scale down afterwards.
yeah this works for you and me me
the average user will say "WTF, throw away this crap" and
On 11/09/2012 08:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB for several releases,
bumped it to 768MB for F15/F16 (IIRC), got it back down to 512MB for
F17, and it's back up to 768MB or 1GB for F18 atm because everyone has
more important stuff to do than optimize
On 11/09/2012 06:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But they wouldn't be able to claim a misunderstanding as now and FESCo would
have a standing for requesting a reversion. Plus, in this case, Anaconda
isn't an "upstream project" in the first place, we are upstream.
Fedora is just one of the downstream
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:30:14AM -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 11:21:07AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> > On 2012-11-09, 07:43 GMT, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB f
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:30:14AM -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 11:21:07AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > On 2012-11-09, 07:43 GMT, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB for several releases,
> > > bumped it to 768MB for F15/F16 (IIRC),
On 11/09/2012 08:08 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:57 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Except that rpm (and yum) use a lot LESS memory these days than they did
in the RHEL-5 era, which I think was used as a comparison here. That's
not where all the memory has gone, quite the contrary.
Wh
* Adam Williamson [10/11/2012 08:36] :
>
> BTW, for the factual record, only the very first generation of the very
> first netbook ever created - the Eee 700-701 - had 512MB of RAM.
Not even that. I have an Eee701 and I replaced the 512MB stick
of RAM with a 2GB one a while ago.
Emmanuel
--
deve
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 23:38 -0800, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> So, since Fe
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>>
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
>>> So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements have
>>> increased
>>> by at least
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 22:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So right now, we are doing substantially *better* at supporting old
> systems than we were in 2003.
Oh, god, I'm pulling a Kevin with this list spamming, but this is just
too glorious not to post. I couldn't resist taking a trip in the w
On 11/10/2012 05:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But it's not_helping_ anything. It's not signal. It's just noise. I
didn't say 'you need 6GB of RAM to install Fedora'. I said to Kevin
'you're comparing the minimum requirements from a time when 256MB of RAM
was a standard desktop configuration to
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 06:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Look, I like a good argument as much as anyone else, but this is
> > ludicrous. Are you just replying to me for the sake of scoring a point?
> No. I feel Fedora is going down the drain, with the installer's demands
> and Fedora's upgra
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 06:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I am pointing out that what you are calling "9 year old" hardware is not
> unlike the hardware to be found on 4-2 year old netbooks/laptops/tablets
> etc. and consider ignoring this hardware to be a mistake.
BTW, for the factual record,
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 06:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Is this really what you would like us to
> > do, or are you just compulsively contradicting whatever you can?
> Neither. I am simply deeply convinced that one of Linux traditional
> domains and key feature had been "not being as resourc
Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said:
> *cough* tmpfs *cough*
>
> Not that I have been bitten by or explicitly looking at it but depending
> how close to upstream systemd Anaconda is an % percentage of that ram is
> being reserved else where ;)
Where is it being "reserved"? Hint: no
On 11/10/2012 05:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 05:22 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements h
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 04:56 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 04:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 04:40 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements t
On 11/10/2012 04:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 04:40 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
My hp pavi
On 11/10/2012 02:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 02:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
People thinking like you are the reason why e
On 11/10/2012 01:19 AM, Carl G wrote:
Could you provide a link to that discussion?
pick a release cycle and go through the mailinglist archives.
It's one of those topics that resurface on each of them so you should
not have a hard time finding something in each of them...
JBG
--
devel maili
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 04:40 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
> > requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
>
> My hp pavilion came out of the box with 2GB ram
On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
My hp pavilion came out of the box with 2GB ram bought last year ago and
tablets and various other devices aren't that high
On 11/10/2012 12:12 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
>It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
>be no chance of that changing.
That's the whole problem. Why is our most reliable upgrade mechanism not
"supported"?
For the first QA got completely byp
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 05:22 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >> So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements have increased
> >> by at least an or
On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements have increased
by at least an order of magnitude! How's that NOT "skyrocketing"?
You're being pretty abs
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:16:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > However, I'm not sure that we can solve this kind of disconnect by a
>> > process change.
>> How about a general policy that planned regressions are not acceptable
>> unless explicitly approved by FESCo? Any
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 02:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
> > requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
>
> People thinking like you are the reason why entire villages in China and
> Africa
Adam Williamson wrote:
> You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
> requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
People thinking like you are the reason why entire villages in China and
Africa are huge heavily-polluted landfills of electronic scrap material.
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 01:19 +, Carl G wrote:
> Could you provide a link to that discussion?
Oh, god, it's been dragged up at least three times that I remember. I
don't really want to spend my afternoon dredging my archives to find the
precise links, but I'd recommend browsing the results of th
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:16:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > However, I'm not sure that we can solve this kind of disconnect by a
> > process change.
> How about a general policy that planned regressions are not acceptable
> unless explicitly approved by FESCo? Any feature that you want to re
Could you provide a link to that discussion?
Thanks
2012/11/9 Adam Williamson
> On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 01:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
> > > be no chance of that changing.
> >
> > That's the
Am 10.11.2012 01:12, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
>> be no chance of that changing.
>
> That's the whole problem. Why is our most reliable upgrade mechanism not
> "supported"?
>
>> Please don't warm ove
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 01:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
> > be no chance of that changing.
>
> That's the whole problem. Why is our most reliable upgrade mechanism not
> "supported"?
>
> > Please d
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB for several releases,
> > bumped it to 768MB for F15/F16 (IIRC), got it back down to 512MB for
> > F17, and it's back up to 768MB or 1GB for F18 atm because everyone ha
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> However, I'm not sure that we can solve this kind of disconnect by a
> process change.
How about a general policy that planned regressions are not acceptable
unless explicitly approved by FESCo? Any feature that you want to remove
(temporarily or permanently) MUST be spel
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
> be no chance of that changing.
That's the whole problem. Why is our most reliable upgrade mechanism not
"supported"?
> Please don't warm over that argument again.
Why not?
> The messaging and opti
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Being stricter about having viable contingency plans for features like
> this (ones that require coordination and can potentially block us if they
> aren't done/done correctly) is one possible way to address this type of
> situation in the future.
And it's the right way. I
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB for several releases,
> bumped it to 768MB for F15/F16 (IIRC), got it back down to 512MB for
> F17, and it's back up to 768MB or 1GB for F18 atm because everyone has
> more important stuff to do than optimize the RAM usage righ
On 2012-11-09, 19:45 GMT, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. I don't think
> anybody on the Anaconda team is happy with the current memory usage.
> That said, we've had very very very little time to pursue fixing this
> particular issue.
I said in my fi
On 11/09/2012 09:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
We just just have feature submission deadline, feature approval
>deadline, then we work on approved features until they are done and then
>give releng/marketing x time to prepare for release. that means we can
>have 5 month release cycle or 7 or 9 mo
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 21:11 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 05:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
> >> when/where this became a requirement.
> >>
>
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:33 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 12:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 09:47 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >>> But if we continue to look at minimal install which post-install
> >>> configuration files is Anaconda explicitly touching?
On 11/09/2012 05:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
when/where this became a requirement.
I think he's saying this because:
1) Features have a section for contingency plans.
On 11/09/2012 12:05 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:35:42AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/08/2012 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Yes. This is_absolutely_ a feature. A complete rewrite of a core and
non-optional component cannot be done ad hoc without planning. One
b
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 09:47 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > But if we continue to look at minimal install which post-install
> > configuration files is Anaconda explicitly touching?
>
> root auth and firewall config are the main ones. Note that we don't
> have any UI for firewall config either,
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 09:35 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Yes. This is_absolutely_ a feature. A complete rewrite of a core and
> > non-optional component cannot be done ad hoc without planning. One
> > blindingly obvious reason for this in the cur
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:47 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:02:10PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Aside from that - I can understand your frustration that you think
> > people are chinwagging and not helping, but my point is kind of that you
> > (anaconda team) hav
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:35:42AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >Yes. This is_absolutely_ a feature. A complete rewrite of a core and
> >non-optional component cannot be done ad hoc without planning. One
> >blindingly obvious reason for this in the
On 11/09/2012 11:32 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2012-11-09, 17:06 GMT, Jesse Keating wrote:
Because anaconda links into a large amount of runtime stuff, that
normally runs isloated and so it /looks/ like our memory usage is
balooned, when in reality the entire system has balooned, we're just
gettin
On 2012-11-09, 17:15 GMT, Peter Jones wrote:
> The installer's memory footprint is largely bound by the size of the
> package set. So, for example, a yum "upgrade" will take more ram -
> because there are effectively twice as many packages involved.
I see that. Couldn’t be there a way how to someh
On 2012-11-09, 17:06 GMT, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Because anaconda links into a large amount of runtime stuff, that
> normally runs isloated and so it /looks/ like our memory usage is
> balooned, when in reality the entire system has balooned, we're just
> getting the blame.
Right, that looks po
Am 09.11.2012 19:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On 11/09/2012 09:57 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>> Except that rpm (and yum) use a lot LESS memory these days than they did
>> in the RHEL-5 era, which I think was used as a comparison here. That's
>> not where all the memory has gone, quite the con
On 11/09/2012 09:57 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Except that rpm (and yum) use a lot LESS memory these days than they did
in the RHEL-5 era, which I think was used as a comparison here. That's
not where all the memory has gone, quite the contrary.
While that may be true, the amount of ram (free
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08:57:05AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>Just to cite similar complaints I see from time to time... It irritates
> >>me that people think it's a problem that in 2012 they can't install in a
> >>VM that is allocated with 256M of RAM. Allocate a reasonable amount,
> >>start
On 11/09/2012 07:15 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:33:05PM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2012-11-09, 14:30 GMT, David Cantrell wrote:
Just to cite similar complaints I see from time to time... It
irritates me that people think it's a problem that in 2012 they can't
install in
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:49:00AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:35 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>
> >>As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
> >>when/where this became a requirement.
> >>
> >
On 11/09/2012 09:35 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
when/where this became a requirement.
I think he's saying this because:
1) Features have a section for contingency plans
On 11/09/2012 09:11 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Well the argue can be made that If you are doing a minimal install it
kinda indicates you actually know what you are doing ( which means you
will probably change whatever was set afterwards ) so the system should
just default to use sane work
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:55:30PM +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:27 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >
> > I've been told that the F18 Anaconda work was for some time done on a
> > single rawhide snapshot; after ~2 months the snapshot was updated -
> > and it took weeks
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
> when/where this became a requirement.
>
I think he's saying this because:
1) Features have a section for contingency plans.
2) In this particular case, we're slippin
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 11:21 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2012-11-09, 07:43 GMT, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It hasn't really 'skyrocketed'. We cited 512MB for several releases,
> > bumped it to 768MB for F15/F16 (IIRC), got it back down to 512MB for
> > F17, and it's back up to 768MB or 1GB for F18
On 11/09/2012 05:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I can keep going, but is it really necessary?
I argue yes maybe not here but having a wikipage under the anaconda name
space which mention all the package and configuration files change that
can directly affect the installer and how would be neces
On 11/09/2012 03:27 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Well, perhaps thing B shouldn't have been changed incompatibly in the
first place. I realize that's an ideal that is impossible to achieve,
but we are rather cavalier about changing interfaces without adequate
notification.
I've been told that the F
On 11/08/2012 12:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/08/2012 08:40 PM, David Lehman wrote:
No. It is an inevitable consequence of the feature set demanded of the
Fedora OS installer.
If thing A must be able to set up and configure thing B and thing B
changes in ways directly related to
On 11/09/2012 05:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
when/where this became a requirement.
It never was up to this point you know the usual attitude of "let's
cross that bridge when we get there" and this release cycle has proven
that it'
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:33:05PM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2012-11-09, 14:30 GMT, David Cantrell wrote:
> > Just to cite similar complaints I see from time to time... It
> > irritates me that people think it's a problem that in 2012 they can't
> > install in a VM that is allocated with 256
On 11/09/2012 05:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/09/2012 05:48 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I still think there would be room for shrinking both code base and the
system dependencies if the installer focused on its core responsibility
- getting the bits on disk. That is an important and very hig
On 11/09/2012 08:57 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/09/2012 04:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
While that has some obvious issues, like new hardware doesn't work
with old kernel/syslinux/grub/udev/etc...,
It's not like it always works in that area anyway
Right, computers don't always w
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:03:23PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > As someone pointed out in yesterday meeting - Fedora is becoming more
> > a combo of time/feature based distribution.
>
> I don't think that's really the case.
>
> The im
On 11/09/2012 06:56 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
The simple fact that you are feeding kickstart file to a single entity
does not mean this entity cannot outsource actual tasks to others and
run them later, be it post-install phase in the actual installer's
session or after (a simulated) reboot.
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
