On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1) change devmapper defaults -- patch rejected, no reason given
> Certainly I agree that the defaults should be changed.
At least in my point of view, a default is something which can be
changed easily, maybe in a config file. In thi
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes ("Re: Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions
> of device mapper block devices"):
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > [Raul Miller:]
>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Are you saying that the current default permissions on (eg) /dev/hda*
> > >
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Which procedure? You seem to know something I don't know. ("Overwrite"
> > means in my context: chmod of static devices or a MODE setting in the
> > udev config)
> A chown/chmod of the device is not scalable or practical.
You recreat
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:09:37PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> > Which procedure? You seem to know something I don't know. ("Overwrite"
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:35:00AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm trying to ask why you are unwilling to have devmapper disks provide
> a default of root.disk 660? Why can't you allow that to be the default?
You can always make permissions less strict, you can't make them more
strict, as the che
206)
+++ debian/changelog(local)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+devmapper (2:1.02.02-1.0permission.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+ * Make device mode modificable.
+
+ -- Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:03:04 +0100
+
devmapper (2:1.02.02-1) unstable; urgency=low
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:26:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for your patches. I don't have time right know to look at the
> technicalities in detail.
I did not get any response about the patches from upstream yet.
>Do we have all of the relevant Debian LVM
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
> to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
And who says that anyone have access to the underlying device?
Bastian
--
... The prejudices peopl
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:38AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> - Increment the section numbers of sections A.2 to A.6;
I don't think this is a good idea, because it breaks _all_ existing
references. At least in germany, they add a letter in this cases. So
this would be A.1 and A.1a.
Bastian
On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 01:01:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I am re-adding lea...@debian.org, and now also commun...@debian.org. I still
> don't see this as an issue that the Technical Committee should decide. This
> is aggressively confrontational behavior of one of the Debian kernel
> maint
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> The Technical Committee is hoping that this will be resolved without
> requiring us to make a decision. If the take-over offer resolves the
> issue, then we will probably vote to take no further action.
Well, take-over removes the n
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
After systemd was fixed, yes.
Bastian
--
Conquest is easy. Control is not.
-- Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror", stardate unknown
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-c
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:11:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
> > After systemd was fixed, yes.
>
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:11AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/debian/lvm2-activation-early.service
Wrong name.
> +[Unit]
> +Description=Activation of LVM2 logical volumes
> +Documentation=man:lvm(8) man:vgchange(8)
> +DefaultDependencies=no
> +After=systemd-udev-sett
Untested patch:
- Static services with the correct name.
- lvm2.service is statically hooked to local-fs.target, as all local
mounts.
- lvm2-early.service is statically hooked to cryptsetup.target, as all
crypto devices.
| drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2014-01-18 12:32 ./lib/systemd/
| drwxr
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:33:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:20:41PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > - lvm2.service is statically hooked to local-fs.target, as all local
> > mounts.
> lvm2.service is not a local mount, so that is not really a
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:46:26AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I didn't see any request to make sure the chroots are updated.
> Not having read the whole thing, would this solve your problem?
We have 2015, we even have snapshot aware filesystems to make it safe.
Why for gods sake is this still a m
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:31:57AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 23:37:13 +0100 Colin Watson wrote:
> > I could arrange for the relevant grub2 postinst scripts to remove
> > /etc/default/grub.d/init-select.cfg entirely when appropriate conditions
> > apply. In addition to a se
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 05:06:31PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> * E) systemd is not available on non-Linux
- You don't need an alternative for something that does not exist.
- Have you ever tried to build those parts of the systemd package on
your favorite glibc non-Linux?
Bastian
--
There'
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:22:29PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to multiple
> concrete layouts:
> 1. an arrangement where all regular files that have traditionally been
>in /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 are physically located in /usr,
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:01:12AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 08:02:06 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:22:29PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to mul
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:56:46AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Oh, I see. So when you say "both" in 1a, you're referring to the overall
> system - like the fact that we have both /bin/bash and /usr/bin/perl.
Yes.
> I don't see how we can force all packages to only ship files in /usr/*
> (your
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:29:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with
> a native format, but a non-native version number.
> 2. Request that the dpkg maintainer relax the restriction which
> prevents the use of 3.0 native with
Hi Gunar
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:14:42PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> dpkg has many bits that make it special. It has been discussed whethe
> dpkg should be a native package or it should become non-native; if it
> were non-native, having a patch that contradicts the upstream author's
> wishes wo
Hi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:48:01PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I was recently working on gcc builds and this disagreement currently
> makes stuff unbuildable. Hence I looked into solutions and/or
> workarounds.
Care to just share what you actually found? Where is it broken and how
to see th
Hi Helmut
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Care to just share what you actually found? Where is it broken and how
> > to see this?
> > Because this whole thing started with "it is broken, but I won't tell
> > you where or what or how".
> Quite clearly, this is no
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> 2+3+6+7. linux-libc-dev could be split into linux-libc-dev-common
>arch:all m-a:foreign and the symlink farms could be kept in
>linux-libc-dev:any m-a:same retaining the size reduction.
This would not actually work. linux-li
Hi
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:54:42PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > 1. API expectation of *-$arch-cross packages
> > I asked exactly that in
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=10654
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:04:02AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 04:37:06PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > I think I see a way to distinguish these four cases in a way that gets
> > everyone what they want.
> >
> > systemd adds an *empty* binary package
> > Package: sys
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 06:54:26AM +0100, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 15:46 +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > On 07/11/2024 10:03, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > Indeed, we can lift Bastian's mail into a proper proposal. Logging
> > > services are generally assumed to be available. It become
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 04:36:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> However, I doubt the TC will want to try to clear a path through the
> nontechnical obstacles between this improvement and trixie. So, to be
> clear, I'm withdrawing my request for the TC to authorise an NMU,
> or to express any opinio
32 matches
Mail list logo
