On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, K. Spoon wrote:
> Since someone else already started the "Is it going to be in 7.1?"
> snowball rolling, I was wondering if the LVM stuff would make it in
> there?
Who can say about 7.1 for sure, but if you look at the latest Rawhide
RPM's, LVM is enabled in the kernel. That
Heya,
Since someone else already started the "Is it going to be in 7.1?"
snowball rolling, I was wondering if the LVM stuff would make it in
there?
--
Kelley SpoonMain: 210-892-4000
Rackspace Managed HostingFax: 210-892-4329
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:37:47PM +0100, redhat.angus wrote:
> Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
>
> > My fear is that if distributions push Reiser right now
> > people will not have the incentive to look at the other filesystems due to the
> > chore of saving (three times), formatting, restoring.
Jean Francois Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows was designed with crashes in mind so AFAIK it does not cache as much as
> Linux do and repairs are faster. I still have to see the Windows repair
> utilities prompt the user for what to do with inode number 152568. This
> happens in
Dax Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trond Eivind Glomsrød said once upon a time (16 Jan 2001):
>
> > > For the record, I would like to see ext3, jfs, xfs, and reiserfs all
> > > stable and viable filesystem choices, with mature utilities and tools to
> > > go with them.
> >
> > Sure. And no
Trond Eivind Glomsrød said once upon a time (16 Jan 2001):
> > For the record, I would like to see ext3, jfs, xfs, and reiserfs all
> > stable and viable filesystem choices, with mature utilities and tools to
> > go with them.
>
> Sure. And no bugs anywhere else in the system either. And perfect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> glibc-2.1.3-21
> ^^ probably you should upgrade to the latest glibc-2.2
probably should not upgrade to 2.2.
2,2 is for Red Hat Linux 7.0, RHL 6.2 was built on glibc 2.1.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.com.au/ for OS/2 & linux information.
C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> chore of saving (three times), formatting, restoring. And then Linux
> will standardize around the jourlaling filsystem who was first ready
> instead of around the best.
Of course, this explains why we all use Minix!!
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> what is this racism against reiserfs at RedHat.
Calm down, lest you be conpared unfavourablu with a famous young Yugoslav
tennis player;-)
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.com.au/ for OS/2 & linux information.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:51:23 +0100 (CET), Bernhard Rosenkraenzer said:
> On 16 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
>
> > Linux really NEEDS a journaling filesystem.
>
> Right... ext3 will hopefully be ready soon.
>
> > No journalling means no desktop
>
> Show me the journalling F
Dax Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bernhard Rosenkraenzer said once upon a time (Tue, 16 Jan 2001):
>
> > It isn't - it's what we're doing (at least until at least one of the
> > journalling FSes is really ready for prime time).
>
> I predict flak similiar to that raised over the choice o
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer said once upon a time (Tue, 16 Jan 2001):
> It isn't - it's what we're doing (at least until at least one of the
> journalling FSes is really ready for prime time).
I predict flak similiar to that raised over the choice of compiler in
RH7.0.
For the record, I would like t
Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> My fear is that if distributions push Reiser right now
> people will not have the incentive to look at the other filesystems due to the
> chore of saving (three times), formatting, restoring. And then Linux will
> standardize around the jourlaling filsystem who wa
On 16 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> Linux really NEEDS a journaling filesystem.
Right... ext3 will hopefully be ready soon.
> No journalling means no desktop
Show me the journalling FAT filesystem or convince everyone that Windoze
{3.1,95,98,Me} are not suitable for the desktop.
I
Jean Francois Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux really NEEDS a journaling filesystem. No journalling means no desktop
> since is just to easy when you power down the computer at the wrong moment to
> hose the filesystem to apoint it cannot be recovered by a normal fsck.
I've yet to s
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:55:07 +0100 (CET), Bernhard Rosenkraenzer said:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, redhat.angus wrote:
>
> > what is this racism against reiserfs at RedHat.
>
> It is not racism. Racism doesn't have logical grounds.
> Not liking reiserfs does.
>
> I have actually used it, an
Hello,
Sorry for the long post here, but this was what just recently went around on
bugtraq at securityfocus.com. Security Issues regarding reiserfs.
I think the redhat team is being justly security conscious here. These
issues could be resloved soon, but _may_ not just be kernel issuses.
Kirk
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, redhat.angus wrote:
> what is this racism against reiserfs at RedHat.
It is not racism. Racism doesn't have logical grounds.
Not liking reiserfs does.
I have actually used it, and got fed up with it when it killed the
partition I used it on.
It looks like once your filesyst
Matt Wilson wrote:
> Uh... what "official" kernel are you looking at? You know about the
> heinous bug in reiserfs found last week, right?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
what is this racism against reiserfs at RedHat.
Is it because some redhat kernel hacker work on ext3 that unanimously
all redhat deve
Thomas Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So go by release numbers? Will it always change for when
> the package changes?
The build system enforces this.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
Chris Kloiber wrote:
>
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > I noticed rawhide now has a kernel-2.4.0-0.43.12.srpm
> > > date Jan 12. The previous version I had was dated Dec 27.
> > > Why wasn't the version/releas/build number incremented?
> >
> > It wasn't
Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> Thomas Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > I noticed rawhide now has a kernel-2.4.0-0.43.12.srpm
> > date Jan 12. The previous version I had was dated Dec 27.
> > Why wasn't the version/releas/build number incremented?
>
> It wasn't rebuilt (if you look at rpm -qip, you
Thomas Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> I noticed rawhide now has a kernel-2.4.0-0.43.12.srpm
> date Jan 12. The previous version I had was dated Dec 27.
> Why wasn't the version/releas/build number incremented?
It wasn't rebuilt (if you look at rpm -qip, you'll see this.)
Not sure why the times
Hello...
Dax Kelson wrote:
> Matt Wilson said once upon a time (Mon, 15 Jan 2001):
>
>
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:26PM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Uh... what "official" kernel are you looking at? You know about the
>>> heinous bug in reiserfs found last week, right?
>>
>> That i
Matt Wilson said once upon a time (Mon, 15 Jan 2001):
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:26PM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > Uh... what "official" kernel are you looking at? You know about the
> > heinous bug in reiserfs found last week, right?
>
> That is, pre-patches != official kernel.
Come now.
I noticed rawhide now has a kernel-2.4.0-0.43.12.srpm
date Jan 12. The previous version I had was dated Dec 27.
Why wasn't the version/releas/build number incremented?
I noticed pcmcia was split to a seperate package,
but the kernel still has the older pcmcia in it too.
-Thomas
> Thoma
26 matches
Mail list logo
