Re: default local DNS caching name server

2014-04-10 Thread Billy Crook
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Back in 2012 there was a discussion about having Fedora default to > using a local DNS caching name server [1]: ... > repeated long application hangs/delays. We need an independent, > system-wide DNS cache, and always point resolv.conf to 1

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

2014-04-09 Thread Billy Crook
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 09.04.2014 22:05, schrieb Billy Crook: > > I would like to see logic like this: > > manpage files don't get installed unless/until: > > 1) packagename-manpages is requested to be installed by the user. tha

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

2014-04-09 Thread Billy Crook
I would like to see logic like this: manpage files don't get installed unless/until: 1) packagename-manpages is requested to be installed by the user. that package would require the 'man' package. OR 2) package is installed AND man is installed. Don't wan't the manpages taking up disk space? rem

Re: F20 release name election?

2013-08-22 Thread Billy Crook
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: >> >> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor? > > I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if > it's an option, and in particular if the mark

Re: Fedora minimal install no tar tool?

2013-07-30 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 17:23 -0400, Douglas Schilling Landgraf wrote: >> I have installed Fedora 17/18/19 (selected Minimal installation) from >> DVD and it completed successfully, however there is no tar tool. It's missing screen, vim, and

Re: Summary of accepted Fedora 20 Changes - week 30

2013-07-25 Thread Billy Crook
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Given the amount of time that he spent on the mailing-list fighting for those > features, then it looks like a waste of time, that work has been done. Unfeatures technically. He wanted to remove features from the Default spin. Subtracti

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-24 Thread Billy Crook
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > It's tempting to carry this argument too far. We can be first with > good new ideas; first with experimental stuff; first with additions. > We need not be first with bad ideas (and discussions here are a way of > figuring out good from ba

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-24 Thread Billy Crook
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Here, done, time elapsed: 1 min googling. > Great. But does this really solve anything except refuting the most > immediate statement by Lennart, taken out of context? 'Context' does not ameliorate a foundation of false statem

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-23 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Billy Crook wrote: >> > Since it _isn't_ served via DHCP in any environment I'm aware of, that's >> > not >> > actually useful. >> Nice to meet y

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-23 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Since it _isn't_ served via DHCP in any environment I'm aware of, that's not > actually useful. Nice to meet you Matt. As of this morning, it is served via DHCP in mine. There's also that guy earlier in the thread. So now you know of tw

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-23 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Also, though, please be aware that "some individual sat down and installed > this system" may not always be our main use case. All of these "configure it > on install" suggestions don't help us with the cloud image at all. I see no reason a

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-23 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:13:28PM -0500, Billy Crook wrote: >> I would love to see the day systemd is as polished, ubiquitous, and >> robust as smtp. But until that happens, nobody is helped by removing >> MTA fro

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-22 Thread Billy Crook
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 19.07.13 13:17, Billy Crook (billycr...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Sendmail stays in Default unless there is compelling reason to switch to >> postfix, exim, meta1, etc. Those users who wish to remove it are welc

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-19 Thread Billy Crook
On Jul 19, 2013 2:16 PM, "Bill Nottingham" wrote: > > Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Billy Crook wrote: > > > Please voice yourself at meetings in #fedora-devel if this is important to > > > you. > > >

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-19 Thread Billy Crook
On Jul 19, 2013 2:11 PM, "Steve Clark" wrote: > > On 07/19/2013 02:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> >> On 07/19/2013 06:45 PM, Billy Crook wrote: >>> >>> I haven't seen anyone asking to ship two sysloggers. >> >>

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-19 Thread Billy Crook
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >> Progress does not that frequently depend on removing older >> functionality. Specifically in this case, removing rsyslog does not >> make journal in any way better. >> >> >> > Per

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

2013-07-19 Thread Billy Crook
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Jaroslav Reznik > wrote: > > = Proposed System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoDefaultSendmail > > > > Change owner(s): Lennart Poettering , Matthew > > Mil

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-19 Thread Billy Crook
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 21:37 -0400, Ding Yi Chen wrote: > > > > Exactly - adding to the minimal install is generally always a supported > > > operation. Removing from the minimal install is always a 'buyer > beware' > > > or 'you get both

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-18 Thread Billy Crook
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 07/18/2013 08:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Wed, 17.07.13 22:35, Ding Yi Chen (dc...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > This should be simpler than forcing those stubborn mind (such as me) to > change, > No? > > We don't force anyone. Y

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-17 Thread Billy Crook
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Billy Crook said: > > What about a special filesystem mounted at /var/log or filesystem > trickery > > therein that presents contents similar to what everyone expects, backed > out > > of jour

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-17 Thread Billy Crook
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > The journal is not an implementation of syslog, we already have that in > rsyslog. Also, the feature is about ending the duplicate storage of the > log messages, so your suggestion is completely against what the feature > is about. > Wh

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog

2013-07-16 Thread Billy Crook
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Ding Yi Chen wrote: > Don't tell me that you have not seen people writing multiple platform > scripts like this: > > case $OS) > Windows* ) >some_windows_scripts > .. > Linux* ) >grep /var/log/messages > . > > > For them: What?