Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Alexander Kurtakov
On 09:09:56 am Thursday, February 24, 2011 Bill Nottingham wrote: > As part of the normal orphan removal process, 113 orphaned packages > with no dependencies have been retired. > > However, there are still orphaned packages that have requirements on > them in the F-15 tree. We would prefer not to

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Michael Cronenworth
On 02/23/2011 05:38 PM, James Ralston wrote: > None of these issues is a dealbreaker, but they*are* losses of > functionality versus what LVM offers. LVM isn't going anywhere. It just won't be the default during a fresh installation, which you would still be free to override by using an LVM aga

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Kofler
Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orphan: gdk-pixbuf > freetennis requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 > tracker requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 > viking requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 > zathura requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 All these BR gdk

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 02/23/2011 01:33 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Well I don't think cleaning up the existing patches will be that big > of a deal, it's mostly a matter of testing. The problem with GRUB2 is > it's GPLv3, explicitly to be a giant pain in the ass for porting any > new fs to GRUB since we're all GPLv2

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Tom Callaway
On 02/23/2011 05:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orphan aalib > Orphan log4net > Orphan qstat I took these three. > Orphan glib-java > Orphan libgconf-java > Orphan libglade-java > Orphan libgnome-java > Orphan libgtk-java > Orphan libvte-java We should consider flushing all of these along with

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Akira TAGOH
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:26:11 -0500, > "BN" == Bill Nottingham wrote: BN> Orphan: apel BN> ddskk requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12 BN> emacs-common-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12 BN> emacs-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12 BN> flim requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12 BN> migemo-emac

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Jon Ciesla
On 02/23/2011 04:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orphan: libsigc++ > TnL requires libsigc-1.2.so.5 > TnL requires libsigc++-devel = 1.2.7-9.fc15 > asc requires libsigc-1.2.so.5 > asc requires libsigc++-devel = 1.2.7-9.fc15 > libasync requires libsigc-1.2.so.5 > qtel r

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Lennart, > My hope is that one day we can ship a read-only root dir by > default, or more specifically a btrfs file system with three > subvolumes in it: one read-only one mounted to /, and two > writable ones mounted to /home and /var, with /tmp mounted from > tmpfs. I can see

Re: systemd fail-to-boot in rawhide

2011-02-23 Thread Ray Strode
Hi, On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Another option would be to parse fsck's output and forward it in some > form to Plymouth to show in the normal progress bar. But I am not sure > if Plymouth can actually do that. (Ray?) Also, this doesn't solve the > problem that we

SysVinit to Systemd cheatsheet change.. can someone verify it's right?

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
I just made a couple changes to the first table of this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SysVinit_to_Systemd_Cheatsheet#Services The chkconfig frozbozz --levels 345 on line listed systemctl enable frozbozz.service as the main equivalent. From running that command on rawhide, that doesn't seem

Re: PolicyKit authentication agent changes

2011-02-23 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 00:14 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Can you explain what the advantage of your approach is? From a packaging > point it looks broken: One the one hand we package a authentication > agent that cannot run by itself, on the other we package an autostart > file for something

Fedora 15 Alpha to slip by one week

2011-02-23 Thread Robyn Bergeron
Today at the Go/No-Go meeting[1] we decided to slip the Alpha by one week. The slip is due to a blocker bug affecting a number of non-US keyboard layouts, including German and French[2], which does not currently have a fix or a reasonable workaround. All other blocker bugs are currently in VER

Re: Bodhi update issue

2011-02-23 Thread Paul Howarth
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:58:34 -0600 Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 04:08:03 pm Paul Howarth wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:54:12 -0600 > > > > Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 02:22:22 am gia...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > I'm trying to p

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread James Ralston
On 2011-02-22 at 14:51-05 Josef Bacik wrote: > Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use > BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. I don't think btrfs subvolumes are capable of replacing LVM functionality quite yet. Here are two usage cases that I

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Milan Broz
On 02/23/2011 07:41 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote: >> If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well. > > Right, which is what we'd wind up doing in the encrypted case. > >>> From btrfs-wiki: >>> btrfs volumes on top of dm-crypt block de

Re: PolicyKit authentication agent changes

2011-02-23 Thread Christoph Wickert
Am Mittwoch, den 23.02.2011, 15:55 -0500 schrieb Matthias Clasen: > As of version 0.100 (which will land in F15 as a post-alpha update), the > polkit-gnome package will no longer install an autostart file for > polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1. Instead, each desktop environment > is reponsible f

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 13:43, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > > 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > > > If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init > > > scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up wi

Re: Bodhi update issue

2011-02-23 Thread Dennis Gilmore
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 04:08:03 pm Paul Howarth wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:54:12 -0600 > > Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 02:22:22 am gia...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I'm trying to push an updated rawstudio package to testing but bodhi > > > (the web interfac

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread James Ralston
On 2011-02-23 at 13:41-05 Peter Jones wrote: > dm-crypt still just throws REQ_FLUSH away instead of figuring out > the block remaps involved and issuing the right bios. Of course, > this is a problem with dm-crypt and _any_ filesystem. Are you sure that's still the case? Because this patchset a

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 17:26 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orphan: gdk-pixbuf > freetennis requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 > soundtracker requires libgdk_pixbuf.so.2 > soundtracker requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.22.0-38.fc12 > tracker requires gdk-pixbuf-devel = 1:0.

dist-git branch change update

2011-02-23 Thread Jesse Keating
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Branch_Proposal Current status is that I've got a staging environment setup (pkgs01.stg.fedoraproject.org) that has a snapshot of the repos from a few days ago and the branches have been renamed. I also have a set of fedora-packager (fedpkg) updates in t

Re: fail to install gcc on fresh rawhide-from-F15

2011-02-23 Thread Jussi Lehtola
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:05:50 +0100 Jim Meyering wrote: > Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Jim Meyering writes: > > > >> ---> Package glibc.x86_64 0:2.8.90-11 will be a downgrade > > > > Where did you get that ANCIENT package? It's almost 3 years(!) old. > > I have *no* idea. Maybe you missed my forme

[ACTION REQUIRED v2] Orphan removal

2011-02-23 Thread Bill Nottingham
As part of the normal orphan removal process, 113 orphaned packages with no dependencies have been retired. However, there are still orphaned packages that have requirements on them in the F-15 tree. We would prefer not to break the requiring packages, so please claim these if your app depends on

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said: > Instead of micromanaging things like testing of updates, FESCo should be > focusing on getting systemwide features actually implemented systemwide, > rather than getting held hostage by recalcitrant maintainers. So, FESCO should be forcing maintainers that

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Michał Piotrowski
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : >> > If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init >> > scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. >> > One that is

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Michał Piotrowski
2011/2/23 Kevin Kofler : > Tomasz Torcz wrote: >>   I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, >> filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards.  Not a single maintainer responded :( > > We really need this kind of stuff to just get committed by provenpackagers > on a FESCo mand

Re: Bodhi update issue

2011-02-23 Thread Paul Howarth
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:54:12 -0600 Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 02:22:22 am gia...@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm trying to push an updated rawstudio package to testing but bodhi > > (the web interface) is saying: > > > > Unable to save update with conflicting builds of the

Re: fail to install gcc on fresh rawhide-from-F15

2011-02-23 Thread Jim Meyering
Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jim Meyering writes: > >> ---> Package glibc.x86_64 0:2.8.90-11 will be a downgrade > > Where did you get that ANCIENT package? It's almost 3 years(!) old. I have *no* idea. As I said, I installed F15 (into existing partitions, but told anaconda to format /, /var and /usr

Re: Bodhi update issue

2011-02-23 Thread Dennis Gilmore
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 02:22:22 am gia...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm trying to push an updated rawstudio package to testing but bodhi > (the web interface) is saying: > > Unable to save update with conflicting builds of the same package: > rawstudio-1.2-9.fc15.20110221svn3825 and > rawstudio-

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jon Masters wrote: >> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can >> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I >> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am >> concer

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Kofler
Tomasz Torcz wrote: > I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, > filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :( We really need this kind of stuff to just get committed by provenpackagers on a FESCo mandate. Instead of micromanaging th

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > > If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init > > scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. > > One that is before the conversion and has sys

PolicyKit authentication agent changes

2011-02-23 Thread Matthias Clasen
As of version 0.100 (which will land in F15 as a post-alpha update), the polkit-gnome package will no longer install an autostart file for polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1. Instead, each desktop environment is reponsible for making sure that an authentication agent is running. For GNOME, this i

New path available for joining the Fedora package maintainers group

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Fenzi
Greetings. FESCo has added an additional path to becoming a co-maintainer of an existing package in the Fedora package collection for folks who are not currently in the packager group. Traditionally, you would gain sponsorship by submitting a new package you create and demonstrating your unders

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Kofler
Jon Masters wrote: > In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can > do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I > don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am > concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Ralf Ertzinger said: > If you never tried the kind of freedom BTRFS and ZFS give you for > shifting around disk space, try it. Seriously. Then you'll see where > the "awful" comes from. In perspective it really is. You cut out the parts of my email where I said I don't have any

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: > > > You can't move PVs. > > > > What do you think pvmove does? > > Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV. Not exactly; pvmove move

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Michał Piotrowski
W dniu 23 lutego 2011 21:48 użytkownik Tomasz Torcz napisał: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I >> hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on >> https://fedoraproje

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I > hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability I have written

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Peter Jones
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: >>> You can't move PVs. >> >> What do you think pvmove does? > > Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV. > >>> You need a separate

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Michał Piotrowski
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:38:50PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : >> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> >> On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> >> >> > 2011/2/22

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: > > You can't move PVs. > > What do you think pvmove does? Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV. > > You need a separate /boot. > > That's needed for more than just LVM (and p

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Ralf Ertzinger
Hi. On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:38:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote > Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office > desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign > disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there > was a way to shrink a mount

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: > You can't move PVs. What do you think pvmove does? > You need a separate /boot. That's needed for more than just LVM (and probably won't go away, as it is a lot simpler to handle a single method in the installer). > If you use more than one > disk the

Re: BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially f

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:49:49PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > You can't move PVs. You need a separate /boot. If you use more than one > disk then it adds significant fragility to the boot process. It slows > down booting. It provides some functionality that's hugely useful in a > small num

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:38:05PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office > desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign > disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there was > a way to shrink a mou

Re: BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

2011-02-23 Thread Jonathan Dieter
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because > >> of it's features > > > > For what it's

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said: > LVM is functional for enterprise environments but awful for the common > home or office cases. Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign disk space from purpose

Re: Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-02-23)

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:02:48 +0100 Lennart Poettering wrote: > This list does not mention bus services at all. Traditionally they > weren't really that visible and if they were bus activatable they were > always enabled with no way to disable them. With the advent of systemd > we now ideally make

Re: BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because >> of it's features > > For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers > since

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:10:43PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing.  I have tested > > the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded > > package usi

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Bill Nottingham
Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) said: > > The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing.  I have tested > > the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded > > package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work.  at some point > > someone also needs to

Re: Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-02-23)

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 11:53, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote: > * #544 List of services that may start by default (nirik, 17:42:35) > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/DefaultServices > (nirik, 17:43:18) > * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/60 (nirik, 17:44:27) >

BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

2011-02-23 Thread Jonathan Dieter
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because > of it's features For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers since September. After a few teething problems (fixed by increasing /p

Services that can start by default policy feedback

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Fenzi
Greetings. FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next time you boot up). We have a draft at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/DefaultServices With a policy and list of exceptions. We wo

Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-02-23)

2011-02-23 Thread Kevin Fenzi
=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-02-23) === Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-23/fesco.2011-02-23-17.30.log.html Meeting summary -

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Peter Jones
On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote: > On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote: > >> 1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes? > > Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to > Josef, nobody has done it yet. > > If you want to stack it on top of dm-c

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 09:56, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > systemd "compatibility" was only added to chkconfig couple of days ago > > up to that point systemd and chkconfig did not compute each other :) > > > > 1. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=229902 > > 2. >

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Peter Jones
On 02/23/2011 01:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is shrunk down to be inst

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/23/11 12:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is shrunk down to be install

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 09:39, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > The proposed Packaging Guidelines for systemd: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft > > Needs to contain the necessary scriptlets for packages that use systemd unit > files. At the moment, the dra

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Casey Dahlin
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is > >> shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has >

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing.  I have tested > the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded > package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work.  at some point > someone als

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:41:49AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is > to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop > them from propagating. You don't just replace years of UNIX (or Linux) > history/heritage

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:34:00PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 02/23/2011 03:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we > > do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs? > > The backwards compatibility cod

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is >> shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has >> performance implications. > > Can you expand upon this more? The f

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Lars Seipel
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote: > 1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes? Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to Josef, nobody has done it yet. If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well. >From btrfs-wiki: >btrfs

Fedora 13 ARM Beta Release

2011-02-23 Thread Paul Whalen
The Fedora 13 ARM Beta is now available for download. There are still a number of packages that haven’t been built for ARM due to build failures or missing dependencies. We’re a little behind the primary architectures so we have the ability to look at later releases to see if these failures hav

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:34:00PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > First could you be a bit more specific what exactly is the problem so we > can test for that when we host systemd test day if I'm getting you right > what you are describing might fall under release blocker... > Yes, if w

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Jesse Keating
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is > shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has > performance implications. Can you expand upon this more? The filesystem is shrunk down when the live image is bu

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:38:50PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >> On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > >> > 2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski : > >> > > Hi, >

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 07:04, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get > > > a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take > > > a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a > > > gui

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Peter Jones
On 02/23/2011 11:41 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is > to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop > them from propagating. Fedora historically relies on an "open source" model for this - there are a lot of

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 23.02.11 11:41, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote: > > You seem to spend a lot of time during your installs undoing all the > > new things that were done for the release. Perhaps a rapid changing, > > bleeding-edge distribution isn't quite suited to your needs. Maybe > > you wo

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Jon Masters
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 07:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use > >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just fo

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On 02/23/2011 03:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we > do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs? The backwards compatibility code would never have been added if that had ever been the intention now would it :)

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Simo Sorce
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:33:26 -0500 Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn > wrote: > > On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser > >>  wrote: > >>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > Defaults shou

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something that >> can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs at the moment >> is this: >> >> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Help.21__Btrfs_claims_I.27m_out_of_spa

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Michał Piotrowski
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi : > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> > 2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski : >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser  wrote: >>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best experience for th

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/23/11 5:38 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you >> install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily. > > So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as "benefits"

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote: >> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best >>> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the >>> past" (i.e st

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

2011-02-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > 2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski : > > > Hi, > > > > > > I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I > > > hope that there is more syste

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Nathaniel McCallum
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 09:27 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote: > > On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > >> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best > >> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the > >

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote: > On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best >> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the >> past" (i.e stagnation). > > *One* data corruption constitutes

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread John Reiser
On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best > experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the > past" (i.e stagnation). *One* data corruption constitutes EPIC FAIL. Btrfs is too young, and will be for yet a while l

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Peter Jones
On 02/22/2011 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decisio

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Camilo Mesias
Josef, On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Your impression is wrong, there has been quite a bit of work done to > make BTRFS work well on small devices, it is the default filesystem > for meego which goes on phones, which is much smaller than anything > you are going to have on

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to second these questions... > > 2011/2/22 Jóhann B. : >> Will there be any performance penalties making this move? > [...] >> What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users? >> >> Will the novice desktop

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Camilo Mesias
Hi I wanted to second these questions... 2011/2/22 Jóhann B. : > Will there be any performance penalties making this move? [...] > What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users? > > Will the novice desktop end user ever take advantages of any of the features > that btrfs br

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread drago01
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my personal opinion, this is a poor design

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500, >  Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> 3) All the various little tools that we have for putting together >> LiveCD's that are very ext* centered.  I've not even looked at this >> yet, but I assume it's going t

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in rawhide

2011-02-23 Thread Patrick MONNERAT
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:59 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Each release, we undergo the effort to track down owners for orphaned > packages in the release, and block those orphaned packages where > necessary. It's that time again for Fedora 15. > > The following packages are currently orphaned a

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011-02-23 Thread Josef Bacik
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my personal opinion, this is a poor desig

Re: rawhide report: 20110222 changes

2011-02-23 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 12:23 +0100, Alexandre Mazari wrote: > And libpeas-0.7.2-1.fc16 breaks gedit: > > (gedit:2796): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: specified class size for type > `GeditPluginsEngine' is smaller than the parent type's `PeasEngine' > class size And GEdit needs a rebuild/new version too

Re: rawhide report: 20110222 changes

2011-02-23 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 12:09 +0100, Alexandre Mazari wrote: > Hi, > > The following update breaks gdm and gnome-session at runtime for me: > > gsettings-desktop-schemas-0.1. > 7-1.fc16 > -- > * Mon Feb 21 2011 Bastien Nocera 0.1.7-1 > - Update to 0.1.7 > > Tho

[Bug 679752] New: perl-PDF-API2-2.017 is available

2011-02-23 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: perl-PDF-API2-2.017 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679752 Summary: perl-PDF-API2-2.017 is available Product: Fedora

[Bug 679380] perl-Coro-5.372 is available

2011-02-23 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679380 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added --

Re: Manipulate Dev. release number properly

2011-02-23 Thread Petr Pisar
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:18:53PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: > We can use the v-string feature provided by Perl itself to normalize the > version numbers of CPAN module rpms. We always convert the legacy decimal > versions to normalized v-string, and use the v-string number as the rpm > version, sinc

  1   2   >