On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:55:02PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> >> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
> >> game". It's those that want to break existing
I'm summarising this thread [0] for the upcoming council meeting.
Automatic ChangeLog generation
Some people have expressed disagreement with committing ChangeLog
updates for some changes. Discussion on that lead to an updated policy
to document nearly all changes. Some people still really dis
* William Hubbs schrieb am 01.08.11 um 19:49 Uhr:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:22:15PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> > everything about portage is very specific and should be separated, I
> > would like to see an addition of one root directory "gentoo" where
> > ${PKGMANAGER} keep all it's stuff.
On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
>> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
>> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions
>> that have to justify why they want to do
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:49:41 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> > 20K /gentoo/tmp
>
> Maybe /tmp?
/var/tmp was there for a reason. On all my systems /tmp is tmpfs, and
it is not suitable for larger builds.
> > 20K /gentoo/overlays
>
> This isn't on everyones system, so I think it is up to th
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:22:15PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> everything about portage is very specific and should be separated, I
> would like to see an addition of one root directory "gentoo" where
> ${PKGMANAGER} keep all it's stuff.
> Some of these are already moveable with ${*DIR} variabl
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 19:22:15 +0200
Francesco Riosa wrote:
> everything about portage is very specific and should be separated, I
> would like to see an addition of one root directory "gentoo" where
> ${PKGMANAGER} keep all it's stuff.
Doesn't really fit in nicely with the build directory being arb
2011/8/1 Michał Górny :
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:30:37 +0200
> Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>
>> * Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr:
>> > Having /usr/portage on a different partition will still be
>> > supported if I understood correctly (at least, it still works fine
>> > for me even having
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:30:37 +0200
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr:
> > Having /usr/portage on a different partition will still be
> > supported if I understood correctly (at least, it still works fine
> > for me even having the rest of /usr under / partiti
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:10:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> > I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
> > game". It's those that want to break existing policies and
> > conventions that have to justify why
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:10:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> This isn't about systemd, but indeed it will solve one compability
> obstacle for them too. No harm there.
Right, it's about the Gnome operating system, of which systemd is but
one strongly coupled part.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.
* Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions
> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to
> keep using what has
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:45:26 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> "There is no way to reliably bring up a modern system with an empty
> /usr, there are two alternatives to fix it: copy /usr back to the
> rootfs or use an initramfs which can hide the split-off from the
> system."
To be clear here: by "m
On 08/01/2011 03:25 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 02:32 PM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
>> W dniu 01.08.2011 13:12, Marc Schiffbauer pisze:
>>> * Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr:
On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300
>
> [
On 08/01/2011 02:32 PM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> W dniu 01.08.2011 13:12, Marc Schiffbauer pisze:
>> * Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr:
>>> On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300
[ .. ]
> I am a zeleous follower of having seperate /usr
* Kacper Kowalik schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:32 Uhr:
>
> I'm responding to this particular mail cause it's last in queue and
> because it replicates things already mentioned before.
>
> I am a zeleous follower of having seperate /usr partition, thus seeing
> moot arguments that goes "in favour" of
El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:30 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
> * Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr:
> > El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:12 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
> > [...]
> > > * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With
> > > / and /usr being on the same
W dniu 01.08.2011 13:12, Marc Schiffbauer pisze:
> * Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr:
>> On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to
wo
* Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr:
> El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:12 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
> [...]
> > * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With
> > / and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have
> > /usr/portage on a seperate FS then
> >
>
* Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01-08-2011 08:31, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide
> >> useful case fo
El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:12 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
[...]
> * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With
> / and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have
> /usr/portage on a seperate FS then
>
> I am sure there are some other reasons too.
>
> Just my 2
* Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr:
> On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
> >> I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to
> >> workaround this, instead of moving the needed shared
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 05:58:49 -0500
Dale wrote:
> I thought Gentoo was about choices? It seems one choice is being
> removed or is it?
Gentoo might be, but Fedora isn't. This is a decision that was made by
one Fedora developer.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01-08-2011 08:31, Eray Aslan wrote:
On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide
useful case for separate /usr, or they have been ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01-08-2011 08:31, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide
>> useful case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague
>
> I will switch if I have to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:22:02 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> > should think this inverse; make separate partitions for the data
> > directories such as /home or /var
> > have /usr on /
> > so when / goes down, you still keep your data
>
> Putting /home and
On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful
> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague
I will switch if I have to but saying / and /usr on the same filesystem
is the better technical solution just annoys me.
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> should think this inverse; make separate partitions for the data
> directories such as /home or /var
> have /usr on /
> so when / goes down, you still keep your data
Putting /home and /var on separate partitions can increase isolation
even further, that is true.
On desk
On 08/01/2011 10:45 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>
>> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful
>> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague like adding 1+1 on
>> / and /usr filesystem sizes and counting the risk of cor
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:23:07 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> this is starting to look good:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr
Honestly, that seems like a poor draft to me. First of all, I don't see
a reason to move /sbin to /usr/bin instead of /usr/sbin.
Seco
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful
> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague like adding 1+1 on
> / and /usr filesystem sizes and counting the risk of corrupted
> filesystem from that (one word: backup)
Maybe I have to e
On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to
>> workaround this, instead of moving the needed shared libs to /
>>
>> I dislike the idea of pciutils and usbutils data
On 07/31/2011 02:22 PM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> W dniu 30.07.2011 15:55, Samuli Suominen pisze:
>> On 07/30/2011 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top
of / b
33 matches
Mail list logo
