On 8/9/22 11:38, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
The fast majority of Ubuntu installations boot without initramfs at
all.
What makes you say this? Every Ubuntu system I've ever installed has an
initrd.img-KERNEL_VERSION in /boot. In this context, I'm talking about
systems installed using the
On 5/25/22 12:59, Athos Ribeiro wrote:
I contacted the patch author to wonder how we could re-distribute the
patch (see the discussion in [2]). They agreed to license it with the
upstream project's license (AGPLv3), and I suggested the approach
described in [4].
Since IANAL, I decided to ask
On 4/20/22 15:48, Treysis wrote:
Not having localhost to resolve to ::1 is getting problematic.
Why? Can you elaborate on the issue(s) you're seeing?
I've always assumed the trade-off is as follows:
A) localhost resolves to ::1 (with or without 127.0.0.1 too)
Pro: Things can use IPv6
These days, just use TRIM support. As long as your filesystem isn't 100%
full, this is going to achieve the same (actually better) effect. With
either approach, the drive will have plenty of unused space for wear
leveling. With TRIM, the drive also knows not to bother copying data
around for
Here's a bug report for it, which you may want to subscribe to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1571579
FWIW, I too would love to see ufw have ipset support. I would use this
for fail2ban integration as well as some permit rules for various
applications.
--
Richard
--
On 12/9/20 11:34 AM, Andrea Xheli wrote:
Can Ubuntu please update the Coturn package currently on the Ubuntu
20.04 LTS https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/coturn its 4.5.1.1 and
the latest version is from https://github.com/coturn/coturn 4.5.1.3
Ubuntu does not update packages in a given
On 3/22/20 4:49 PM, Onur GURSOY wrote:
> In general, you are doing something for ubuntu for packaging ?
> I can say, Most of ubuntu packages are fully compatible with debian
> buster/sid or something like that version?
In practice, there is a fair amount of binary compatibility between
Ubuntu
On 2/25/20 2:29 PM, Mike Purvis wrote:
> Would it be reasonable to patch this change onto the current 3.3.7
> version to avoid dependent packages turning off warnings or doing other
> workarounds?
Without knowing the specifics of the patch, most likely. But you're
running out of time. At this
Please file feature requests in Launchpad, on the appropriate package.
--
Richard
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 14:42, Clinton H <49studeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ubuntu 19.10
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>
On 10/19/19 4:43 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't have much to say about most of this, but noticed this bit:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:48:42PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>> The same implementation could (and if I have my way, will) be used to
>> provide a features=
TL;DR: I think the installer should default to all features, so I think
the current behavior is correct. I would support the installer gaining
an option to default to a subset of features (e.g. using the future
features=portable mechanism) to make the pool more portable. If the
desktop GUI
11 matches
Mail list logo
