Gergely Nagy writes:
> Vincent Danjean writes:
>
>> Le 15/12/2011 18:33, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
>>> ,
>>> | dh-exec.DEADBEEF/etc/my-package/my-package.conf /etc/my-package
>>> | examples/* /usr/share/doc/my-package/examples
>>> `
>>>
>>> As far as I see, this should cause no ill side-eff
Joey Hess writes:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> At the moment, I have something that works like this:
>>
>> ,
>> | #! /usr/bin/dh-exec-install
>> | # The next one will simply echo it back to dh_install
>> | source-file /dest-dir/
>> |
>> | # This one will copy the file itself, following similar h
Thomas Koch writes:
> Hi,
>
> I just made a fool of myself on the simple-build-tool list by claiming that
> Debian would build scala without scala. I only checked debian/rules and
> debian/control and since scala is in main, I assumed that I must be right.
>
> However scala comes with a bytecode
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>>> My implementation copies the file to the desired destination, which may
>>> or may not be a good idea - I'll do some more tests to see which one's
>>> less painful and more safe.
>>
>> That breaks -X, --fail-missing, --list-missing, --sourcedir, and --tmpdir
>
> T
Russ Allbery writes:
> Zachary Harris writes:
>
>> My understanding of the FHS would be that if a library is a dependency
>> of a binary in /bin or /sbin, then such library belongs in /lib, not
>> /usr/lib. (If for some reason the library is also desired in /usr/lib
>> then a sym link from /lib
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:34:16AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> (reducing CC as I guess that most are subscribed to -devel)
>
> Quoting Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org):
>
> > I don't think these things are alike. Separating /var and /tmp from the
> > rest of the file systems is done because
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:53:24PM -0500, Zachary Harris wrote:
>> I could be wrong, but my (admittedly stereotyped) impression of the
>> standard use cases is that if you've got someone who DOES want to mount
>> /usr separately from "/" (e.g. over NFS or because of a sele
Gergely Nagy writes:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> Well, thanks for making my point. Implementing these (useful) features
>> in debhelper would be less pain to write and less eyesore for looking at
>> the implementation.
>
> Perhaps. But the executable thing is what is in debhelper, not the
> va
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 15, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > > You keep repeating arguments in favour of moving /{bin,sbin,lib}/ to
> > > /usr/ :-)
> > Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
> > to move the files. I still thi
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>> And for the record, I'm seeking input on the dh-exec implementation
>> here. Keep the anti-executable-debhelper-foo thing in the other thread,
>> please.
>
> But that is the actualy problem. The executable-debhelper-foo thing is
> in many peoples optinion bad.
>
>
Josh Triplett writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>Josh Triplett writes:
>>> In all of the recent discussions about separate /usr partitions, most
>>> people seem to acknowledge them as unusual, special-purpose
>>> configurations, even those who use them. To the extent they have a use
>>> at all, th
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 at 12:13:55 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> As for /var that should be a seperate partition. [...]
> Overall it is a good idea and having it a
> seperate partition is no burden for the normal user.
I don't think that should be the default; remember that the default is what
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:52:49AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
I used to have a separate /, /usr and /home on my own machines, but I've
given up on that; in practice I never got the size estimates right (e.g.
"/usr was large enough, but then I wanted to try vegastrike", and life's too
short to s
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:41:39AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 00:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > Hurd doesn't support PATH_MAX. So trying to allocate memory based on
> > PATH_MAX isn't going to work on Hurd. However, with glibc (and with
> > POSIX 1003.1-2008) we ca
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:15 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("[Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
> patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > Dear Debian/Hurd, GNU/Hurd and Debian-devel people. This arrived today.
> > Any ideas on how to proceed? Is it
Le jeudi 08 décembre 2011 à 20:16 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Let's try to summarize the possible configurations and what is needed to
> support them:
>
> - / and /usr are in the same filesystem
> * no changes are needed
> - / and /usr are in different filesystems
> - an initramfs is or c
Simon McVittie writes:
> life's too short to spend time booting in single-user mode and
> resizing LVs.
That's probably why we now have online resizing of LVs and filesystems
--
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:13:29PM +0100, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes:
>
> > life's too short to spend time booting in single-user mode and
> > resizing LVs.
>
> That's probably why we now have online resizing of LVs and filesystems
resize2fs, at least, only supports o
Svante Signell writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:15 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Where can I find the detailed explanation of why this patch is
> > required and how it works to fix the probl
Lars Wirzenius, 2011-12-16 15:38+0100:
> resize2fs, at least, only supports online resizing to make the filesystem
> larger, not smaller. It's not particularly useful for, say, the root
> filesystem.
This is also true of Ext* with resize2fs, and probably most file
systems. Online shrinking is a ve
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Cyril Lacoux
* Package name: kosd
Version : 0.8.1
Upstream Author : Marcel Hasler
* URL : http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=81457
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : KDE On-Screen Displ
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:20 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
> patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:15 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Where can I find the detailed explanation of wh
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:31 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:41:39AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 00:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > > Hurd doesn't support PATH_MAX. So trying to allocate memory based on
> > > PATH_MAX isn't going to work on H
On Dec 16, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Please correct my confusion if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure I can see
> why it wouldn't be possible to snapshot the rootfs whichever way we
> migrate files. Both / and /usr would need to be snapshotted as a whole
> in order to do proper rollbacks wouldn't they? So
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> I'm inclined to follow this advice and would indeed propose that the
> "atomic" partman-auto recipe is kept, however without a separate /usr
> partition (discussions on -devel and the current practice convinced me
> that a separate /usr is seomthing that probably belongs
Svante Signell writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> [ stuff ]
It looks like I'm not expressing myself well enough. Or at any rate,
I'm not getting through. Perhaps someone else would like to try to
explain ?
I'll ha
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> I haven't looked at the patch in this thread, but most of the time that
> I've seen PATH_MAX used in software, it's indicated a design flaw in an
> interface: use of sta
On 16.12.2011 18:38, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> I'm inclined to follow this advice and would indeed propose that the
>> "atomic" partman-auto recipe is kept, however without a separate /usr
>> partition (discussions on -devel and the current practice convinced me
>> that a separ
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:32:35PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 16.12.2011 18:38, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Christian PERRIER wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to follow this advice and would indeed propose that the
> >> "atomic" partman-auto recipe is kept, however without a separate /usr
> >> partition (di
Quoting Michael Biebl (bi...@debian.org):
> > I don't think that d-i should be on the leading edge of this discussion.
> > Once Debian has made up its mind, d-i can be updated to follow the
> > consensus.
>
> To me it looks like there is broad consensus that a separate /usr
> partition should be
On Dec 16, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Indeed so. But if upstream won't take the memory allocation patch
> then a "big enough" #define is surely better than not having a dhcp
> client.
If Hurd developers would suddenly start to act pragmatically, then
they may suddenly question what they are doing with
Michael Biebl writes:
> On 16.12.2011 18:38, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Christian PERRIER wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to follow this advice and would indeed propose that the
>>> "atomic" partman-auto recipe is kept, however without a separate /usr
>>> partition (discussions on -devel and the current practic
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 09:11:22PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 04:46 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > In all of the recent discussions about separate /usr partitions, most
> > people seem to acknowledge them as unusual, special-purpose
> > configurations, even those who use them.
>
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Genannt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: ruby-gelf
Version : 1.3.2
Upstream Author : Lennart Koopmann, Alexey Palazhchenko
* URL : https://github.com/Graylog2/gelf-rb
* License : Expa
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 19:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 16, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Indeed so. But if upstream won't take the memory allocation patch
> > then a "big enough" #define is surely better than not having a dhcp
> > client.
> If Hurd developers would suddenly start to act prag
Steve Langasek wrote:
> There isn't. There's just a broad consensus among those who are talking
> about changing things.
Yes.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius, 2011-12-16 15:38+0100:
> > resize2fs, at least, only supports online resizing to make the filesystem
> > larger, not smaller. It's not particularly useful for, say, the root
> > filesystem.
>
> This is also true of Ext* with resize2fs, and probably most file
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Exactly my point, then. The guided partitioning option I mentioned
> makes /home, /usr, /var, and /tmp all separate partitions. You just
> said you don't want a separate /home, and you do want a separate /var.
> Thus, you have custom requirements that don't fit the guided o
On Dec 16, Josh Triplett wrote:
> A configuration with everything in one partition needs no extra
> configuration; anyone who wants such a configuration will like what the
> guided partitioner comes up with. A configuration with five separate
> partitions seems almost impossible to provide sensi
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> > To me it looks like there is broad consensus that a separate /usr
> > partition should be considered deprecated and this option removed from
> > the installer.
>
> There isn't. There's just a broad consensus among those who are talking
> about chan
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:13:55PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>Josh Triplett writes:
> >>> In all of the recent discussions about separate /usr partitions, most
> >>> people seem to acknowledge them as unusual, special-purpose
> >>> confi
Hi Josh,
Seems you're as much passionate about this topic as I am! :)
At this point, I don't remotely hope to convince you, but perhaps you
will find some of my points valid.
On 12/17/2011 02:46 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Hence why I said "most people" (because I didn't want to imply
> unanimity)
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 04:13:50AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Seems you're as much passionate about this topic as I am! :)
> At this point, I don't remotely hope to convince you, but perhaps you
> will find some of my points valid.
Likewise. :)
> On 12/17/2011 02:46 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: v3c
Version : 2.5.0-01
Upstream Author : Name
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/v3c/
* License : (LGPL)
Programming Lang: C, C++, make, m4
Description : C/C++/sh/make/automake
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: treedb
Version : 1.3.0-01
Upstream Author : Philip Ashmore
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/treedb/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C, C++,m4
Description : on-disk memory
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: meta-treedb
Version : 1.4.0-01
Upstream Author : Philip Ashmore
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/meta-treedb/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C, C++, m4
Description : on-d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: v3c-dcom
Version : 0.5.0-01
Upstream Author : Philip Ashmore
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/v3c-dcom/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C, C++, m4
Description : Baby steps
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: v3c-qt
Version : 0.7.0-01
Upstream Author : Philip Ashmore
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/v3c-qt/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: m4
Description : v3c/automake wrapper f
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philip Ashmore
* Package name: v3c-qt-examples
Version : 0.7.0-01
Upstream Author : Philip Ashmore
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/v3c-qt/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : v3c/automake
49 matches
Mail list logo
