On 2011-10-11, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
What I don't buy is the "your /usr will be your /System" thing. We're
too much entangled with /var (the dpkg DB for instance), so that there
are parts in /var that are not at all host-specific but /System-specif
On 2011-10-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
> That's namespace pollution, you don't want to have executables you can't run
> due to them being root-only in your $PATH.
You could skip executables that you cannot run in tab completion and ac
On Mi, Okt 12, 2011 at 06:09:00 (CEST), Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri writes:
>
> […]
>
> > So let's look at the reasons against merging /usr in / listed in my
> > final summary. All of them do not apply to merging / in /usr, and
> > actually become arguments in favour of doing it:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Guido Günther"
* Package name: libvirt-tck
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Daniel Berrange
* URL : http://libvirt.org/testtck.html
* License : GPL or Artistic License
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : framew
Hi,
First of all, thanks for packaging this so fast. :)
Ok, I am very happy to help you :)
> The module is using fcntl(2), not flock(2).
>
Fixed.
> I'd use the wording from upstream's README which seems clearer. And it's
> probably worth mentioning that this supports reliable locking over N
Currently we have wxwidgets2.6 and wxwidgets2.8 in the archive. We've
had wxwidgets2.8 since lenny and it's now much more widely used than
2.6 in the archive. Upstream 2.6 no longer really gets any attention
(the last release was in 2007), while 2.8 had a point release about 6
months ago.
So I b
> unruh writes:
> On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[…]
>> So let's look at the reasons against merging /usr in / listed in my
>> final summary. All of them do not apply to merging / in /usr, and
>> actually become arguments in favour of doing it:
>> - NFS: sharing a read only sy
> Marco d'Itri writes:
[…]
> And then there is the big argument in favour of it: booting without
> /usr is becoming more and more difficult. The two current solutions
> for this adopted by udev and the related tools are both suboptimal:
> waiting in a loop for /usr to appear can fail du
> Marco d'Itri writes:
[…]
> So let's look at the reasons against merging /usr in / listed in my
> final summary. All of them do not apply to merging / in /usr, and
> actually become arguments in favour of doing it:
> - NFS: sharing a read only system over NFS becomes much easier (I
>
Hi!
First of all, thanks for packaging this so fast. :)
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 14:32:25 -0500, Julián Moreno Patiño wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: Julián Moreno Patiño
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC:
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org,642...@bugs.debian.org
>
> *
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Adrien wrote:
> The packaging is now ready and we are looking for a sponsor to include it in
> the qt-kde repository (http://qt-kde.debian.net/). So experienced users can
> test it before the official stable release, planned for november or
> december.
I think exp
On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Oct 11, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> >> We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a separate /usr,
>> >
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a separate /usr,
> >> and the outcome was a broad consensus for keeping things this way.
> > No, we discussed the idea of merging /usr in / (to which I was opposed
> > myself as well).
> > This is a differen
On Oct 11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
> I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
I do not like this either, but it is not required.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Marco d'Itri dijo [Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200]:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
>
> How much complex would it be to implement
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 508644 by 645022
Bug #508644 [general] Sorting out mail-transport-agent mess
Was blocked by: 495834 645020
Added blocking bug(s) of 508644: 645022
> block 508644 by 645024
Bug #508644 [general] Sorting out mail-transport-agent mess
Was block
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 495834 + patch
Bug #495834 [bcron-run] bcron-run: please fix mail-transport-agent dependency.
Added tag(s) patch.
> block 508644 by 645020
Bug #508644 [general] Sorting out mail-transport-agent mess
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking
Hi,
Calligra, the fork of KOffice, has released its beta 2 version :
http://www.calligra-suite.org/news/announcements/calligra-2-4-beta-2/
The debian koffice package has been updated for follow these changes :
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-kde/kde-std/calligra.git;a=summary
The packag
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 637232 644986
Bug#637232: general: Multiarch breaks support for non-multiarch toolchain
Bug#644986: i386: Compiling gcc-snapshots from upstream with
multiarch-toolchain?
Bug#639214: eglibc: changes to paths concerning crt1.o, crti.o an
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 644986 general
Bug #644986 [libc6-dev] i386: Compiling gcc-snapshots from upstream with
multiarch-toolchain?
Bug reassigned from package 'libc6-dev' to 'general'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions eglibc/2.13-21.
> severity 64498
Package: wnpp
Owner: Julián Moreno Patiño
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org,642...@bugs.debian.org
* Package name: libfile-fcntllock-perl
Version : 0.12
Upstream Author : Jens Thoms Toerring
* URL : http://searc
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
That's namespace pollution, you don't want to have executables you can't run
due to them being root-only in your $PATH.
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:50:35PM BST, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> To nitpick a bit, your third possibility mentioned that the fix is "not
> worth", but there are at least two sub-cases there: (1) maintainer does
> not want to spend *their own time* preparing the fix, but would gladly
> accept pat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Paul Waring
* Package name: libnet-ftpssl-perl
Version : 0.18
Upstream Author : Curtis Leach
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~cleah/Net-FTPSSL-0.18/
* License : GPL or Artistic (same as Perl)
Programming Lang: Perl
De
> Mike Hommey writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Marco d'Itri writes:
[…]
>>> No, we discussed the idea of merging /usr in / (to which I was
>>> opposed myself as well). This is a different concept.
>> The only significant difference that
On 11/10/11 20:28, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > Marco d'Itri writes:
> > On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>
> >>> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> >>> least
On 2011-10-11 19:48 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> > I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
>> > least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /".
> Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
>>> least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to
>>> /"...
>> W
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> > least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
> We already discussed the idea of dropping support
На 11.10.2011 17:32, Marco d'Itri написа:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
This reminds me a bit of the /usr/doc/ => /usr/share/doc/ transition.
This changes semantics of /usr directory. /usr becomes all shareable
files, /usr/share - all shareable architecture-independant fi
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a separate /usr,
and the outcome was a
> Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Oct 11, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
>> astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
> It is explained in the Red Hat wiki page. Try reading it again.
Indeed, I've just read it. To summarize
On Oct 11, unruh wrote:
> That would be fine if /usr is always on the root partition. However many
Feel free to come back after actually reading the linked page.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
> astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
There are good arguments in the following link (Marco provided it with
his initial email.)
https://fedoraproject.org
On 2011-10-11, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
>
> How much complex would it be to implement this in Debian?
> Would
On Oct 11, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
> astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
It is explained in the Red Hat wiki page. Try reading it again.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Oct 11, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Rather complex, I'm afraid. Especially as not all architectures
>> even support an initramfs, AFAIK.
> I doubt this, since the initramfs can be embedded in the kernel image
> itself (and indeed it always contains one, it ju
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Rather complex, I'm afraid. Especially as not all architectures even
> support an initramfs, AFAIK.
I doubt this, since the initramfs can be embedded in the kernel image
itself (and indeed it always contains one, it just is empty).
But still, then these architect
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:44:12 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-10-11 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
[snip]
Would "mv /bin/* /usr/bin/" and making it a symlink just work,
without
the need to create temporary symlinks in every package as red
On 2011-10-11 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
> least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
>
> How much complex would it be to implement this in Debi
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old "move all to /"...
How much complex would it be to implement this in Debian?
Would "mv /bin/* /usr/bin/" and making it a symlink ju
Hi,
I've uploaded a binary package[1] some days ago and found the powerpc
build failing while processing the package tests[2].
Beeing no valgrind expert - what is the best way to deal with it? Just
removing valgrind from the powerpc build dependencies should work, but
how do I know if these
On 10/09/2011 03:26 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Does anybody know some way to bind an action to the button
> most usb sata docking stations come with?
please ask on debian-user, which is a much more appropriate list for
such questions.
Thanks,
Bernd
--
Bernd Zeimetz
44 matches
Mail list logo
