On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 21:44 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
> With a symlink, that "data" is the string that shows as the symlink
> target. The advantage over a tiny file is that if the string is short
> enough to fit within the inode structure, no data block on the disk
> needs to be allocated.
On 9/18/22 9:23 PM, Tim via users wrote:
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:01 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
As Jonathan mentioned in a previous reply, systemd is using symlinks for
temporary data storage, like a dictionary or map depending on which
programming language you're using.
Kinda wierd. I wonder
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:01 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> As Jonathan mentioned in a previous reply, systemd is using symlinks for
> temporary data storage, like a dictionary or map depending on which
> programming language you're using.
Kinda wierd. I wonder what the advantage is over creating
On 9/18/22 16:44, Stephen Morris wrote:
Just an FYI, I've issued ll /run/systemd/units and on my system
that folder contains nothing but symlinks and everyone of them are
pointing at files that don't exist. If these are created every boot,
then what is FC36 doing wrong to create invalid
dwoody...@rdwoodyard.com writes:
I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
I have been using 5.18.10
Anybody have any ideas?
This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous
kernel does
On 17/9/22 01:48, stan via users wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:55:11 +1000
"Michael D. Setzer II via users" wrote:
I've run this little script from time to time in /
find . -xtype l >/badlinks 2>ERR
grep -v '/proc\|/run' /badlinks-clean
At present ends up with other 300 lines in the
And if this is a kernel issue, how is it that it didn't take a kernel
update to cause it? It was working before the update with the same
kernel, why would it stop? Strange.
It may have been a perfect storm of e.g. a previous kernel upgrade which
introduced a condition that a later audio or
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 05:30:42PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 08:29:52PM +0800, Lily White wrote:
> > Also, please attach a screenshot so we'll know if it's actually a
> > problem or a personal taste issue.
>
> http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/ugly.png
Terminal after
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 08:29:52PM +0800, Lily White wrote:
> Also, please attach a screenshot so we'll know if it's actually a
> problem or a personal taste issue.
http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/ugly.png
> And don't forget to go to the test list.
The same thing would apparently happen on F36.
The attachments went over the size limit for the list, so
I deleted them, and just sent the text. It should be enough. If the
moderator approves it, you will see a duplicate, with the screenshots
attached. I'm not sure how long that takes (especially on a Sunday), so
thought I would get this to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 16:10:27 +0200
andreas.fourn...@runbox.com wrote:
> So, I just updated to kernel 5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 that was released
> today. Unfortunately that didn't change anything. Still no sound :(
>
> Makes me think that is wasn't a kernel issue at all, as the software
> update
On Sat, 2022-09-17 at 12:03 +0100, ja wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-09-16 at 20:32 +0200, andreas.fourn...@runbox.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-09-16 at 08:00 -0700, stan via users wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:14:04 +0200
> > > andreas.fourn...@runbox.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Today I updated the
Fernando Cassia writes:
https://uefi.org/revocationlistfile>https://uefi.org/revocationlistfile
I am not a lawyer, but I'm sure lawyers can have a field day with the above
statement. Specially if your machine - real or virtual - stops booting after
a revocation list update.
I defy
Also, please attach a screenshot so we'll know if it's actually a
problem or a personal taste issue.
And don't forget to go to the test list.
On 9/18/22 6:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I upgraded from Fedora 35-ish to 37 recently, and the most obvious
thing is the change to Google Noto
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 11:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> So I upgraded from Fedora 35-ish to 37 recently, and the most obvious
> thing is the change to Google Noto fonts
> (https://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultToNotoFonts)
>
> Wow oh wow, are these fonts ugly and unreadable
So I upgraded from Fedora 35-ish to 37 recently, and the most obvious
thing is the change to Google Noto fonts
(https://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultToNotoFonts)
Wow oh wow, are these fonts ugly and unreadable for everyone or is it
just a peculiarity of my system or of the upgrade
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 02:30 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I'm sure lawyers can have a field day with the
> above statement. Specially if your machine - real or virtual - stops
> booting after a revocation list update.
Curiosity makes me wonder why something gets listed
17 matches
Mail list logo
