On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 13:24 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:00:31PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:23:24PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski
> > -Szmek wrote:
> >
> > > For majority of ro-at-boot setups, changing to rw would be the
> > > b
> UEFI doesn't solve anything with the rtc-in-local stuff windows is
> doing there.
Sorry for being slow, but could you please explain this a bit more? I don't
want to nitpick this to death (I've just set Windows to use UTC and it seems to
work great), but I'm really interested in learning why U
On Mon, 04.05.15 13:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:00:31PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:23:24PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > > For majority of ro-at-boot setups, changing to rw would be the bes
Am 04.05.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kamil Paral:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201979 is about systemd
being stupid and rerunning root fsck, which sometimes triggered the
first issue. I just posted a patch upstream:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-May/031445.ht
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201979 is about systemd
> > being stupid and rerunning root fsck, which sometimes triggered the
> > first issue. I just posted a patch upstream:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-May/031445.html
>
> Well, note that this on
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:00:31PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:23:24PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > For majority of ro-at-boot setups, changing to rw would be the best and the
> > simplest
> > solution. I don't think we should do that automatically (e.g
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:23:24PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> For majority of ro-at-boot setups, changing to rw would be the best and the
> simplest
> solution. I don't think we should do that automatically (e.g. through rpm
> macro),
> but instead encourage people to switch man
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:55:38PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 02.05.15 18:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:21:48PM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> > > On 28 April 2015 at 13:40, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr
On Sat, 02.05.15 18:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:21:48PM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> > On 28 April 2015 at 13:40, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > > Time in UTC is just
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:21:48PM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 13:40, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> > > > timezone,
> > > No, it's not. This has
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/01/2015 02:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> > > Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 16:37 (UTC-0700):
> > >
> > > > I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's
On 5/1/15 2:18 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:11:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> "What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that
>> doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to manually
>> enable time-based fsck in ext234, which has bee
On 04/30/2015 06:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's contention
is :
i) there is only a problem if you have time-based fsck enabled
ii) this is not the default
In addition, it's only going to be a problem when fsck is run during
early boot, b
On 05/01/2015 02:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 16:37 (UTC-0700):
I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's
contention
is :
i) there is only a problem if you have time-based fsck enab
Am 01.05.2015 um 09:18 schrieb Till Maas:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:11:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
"What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that
doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to manually
enable time-based fsck in ext234, which has been
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:11:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> "What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that
> doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to manually
> enable time-based fsck in ext234, which has been turned off by default
> in fedora since t
Once upon a time, Eric Sandeen said:
> Time-based check is ext234's (old default) behavior of forcing a full
> fsck just because X days or Y mounts have gone by.
Yeah, but since the early days of defaulting to ext3, Red Hat Linux (and
so Fedora after that) disabled that on filesystems created by
On 4/30/15 7:35 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 17:11 (UTC-0700):
>
>>> He never mentioned what time-based fsck is that I saw,
>
>> "What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that
>> doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to ma
On 4/30/15 7:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:22:20PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> Maximum mount count: 21
>> Last checked: Mon Apr 6 10:42:37 2015
>> Check interval: 15552000 (6 months)
>
> The default is definely now 0, but you're right,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:22:20PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> Maximum mount count: 21
> Last checked: Mon Apr 6 10:42:37 2015
> Check interval: 15552000 (6 months)
The default is definely now 0, but you're right, if you've upgraded for
a long time, it won't be ch
Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 17:11 (UTC-0700):
>> He never mentioned what time-based fsck is that I saw,
> "What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that
> doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to manually
> enable time-based fsck in ext234, which
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 16:37 (UTC-0700):
>>
>> > I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's
>> > contention
>> > is :
>>
>> > i) there is only a problem
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 16:37 (UTC-0700):
>
> > I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's
> > contention
> > is :
>
> > i) there is only a problem if you have time-based fsck enabled
> > ii) this is not the de
Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 16:37 (UTC-0700):
> I'd prefer objective analysis over anecdata. poettering's contention
> is :
> i) there is only a problem if you have time-based fsck enabled
> ii) this is not the default
> your anecdote does not provide enough information to prove or di
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:13 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 15:49 (UTC-0700):
>
> > We seem to have two sides saying two fundamentally different things
> > here: one claiming that all Windows/Fedora multiboot systems (that
> > haven't had the hardware clock set t
Adam Williamson composed on 2015-04-30 15:49 (UTC-0700):
> We seem to have two sides saying two fundamentally different things
> here: one claiming that all Windows/Fedora multiboot systems (that
> haven't had the hardware clock set to UTC and Windows adjusted to know
> about that) are doing fsck
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 18:46 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 29.04.15 11:48, Przemek Klosowski (przemek.klosow...@nist.gov
> ) wrote:
>
> > I agree that it's not possible to make this work under every
> > circumstance,
> > but a compromise existed that worked well enough so that most
>
On Wed, 29.04.15 11:48, Przemek Klosowski (przemek.klosow...@nist.gov) wrote:
> I agree that it's not possible to make this work under every circumstance,
> but a compromise existed that worked well enough so that most people were
> not complaining. I propose that a system that possibly hiccups ev
On 04/29/2015 11:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 29.04.15 16:46, Lubomir Rintel (lkund...@v3.sk) wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 04/28/2015 03:52 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
And no, this *never* worked fully on Linux, and it never will,
sorry.
B
On Wed, 29.04.15 16:46, Lubomir Rintel (lkund...@v3.sk) wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 04/28/2015 03:52 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > > And no, this *never* worked fully on Linux, and it never will,
> > > sorry.
> >
> > But it worked sufficentil
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 04/28/2015 03:52 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > And no, this *never* worked fully on Linux, and it never will,
> > sorry.
>
> But it worked sufficentily most of the time ... ever since!
>
> The current situation means,
> - Fedor
On 04/28/2015 03:52 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
And no, this *never* worked fully on Linux, and it never will, sorry.
But it worked sufficentily most of the time ... ever since!
The current situation means,
- Fedora does not support multiboot'ing at all,
- Fedora is preferring to be militan
On Tue, 28.04.15 14:50, Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:14:27 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> > Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
> > All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None
> > that
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:14:27 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
> All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
> are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
> twice
On 28 April 2015 at 13:40, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> > > timezone,
> > No, it's not. This has been written about many times, but in short:
> > - the information about
On 27 April 2015 at 21:36, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
>
>> Windows doesn't work fine with RTC in local time, unless you have one and
>> only one Windows install on the system. If you (say) dual-boot Windows 95
>> and Windows NT 4.0 (I've done t
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> > timezone,
> No, it's not. This has been written about many times, but in short:
> - the information about the timezone used is not stored in RTC,
> so all users o
Simon Farnsworth composed on 2015-04-28 10:00 (UTC+0100):
> Same issues happened on the machines that triple-booted Windows 95, 98 and
> Me, only worse as they got adjusted three times on DST change, not just
> twice.
I learned early on how to avoid that. Just tell Windows there is no DST to
adju
On Monday 27 April 2015 14:36:53 Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
>
> > Windows doesn't work fine with RTC in local time, unless you have one and
> > only one Windows install on the system. If you (say) dual-boot Windows 95
> > and Windows NT 4.0 (I'
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> Windows doesn't work fine with RTC in local time, unless you have one and
> only one Windows install on the system. If you (say) dual-boot Windows 95
> and Windows NT 4.0 (I've done this in a work environment), and boot back and
> forth
On 04/27/2015 06:52 PM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
Come to that, how is Linux supposed to find and read the registry,
It doesn't have to. Just do it as it had been done in Linux for ages:
Let the user set a configuration item "RTC runs in local time Y/N".
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On 04/27/2015 06:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
timezone,
No, it's not. This has been written about many
On Monday 27 April 2015 10:39:40 Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> >> timezone,
> > No, it's not. This h
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
>> timezone,
> No, it's not. This has been written about many times, but in short:
None of what you
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:47:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> timezone,
No, it's not. This has been written about many times, but in short:
- the information about the timezone used is not stored in RTC,
so all users of RTC need t
On 27 April 2015 at 09:54, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 09:34 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> On 27 April 2015 at 06:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
>>> timezone, so if Windows is going to get berated for not dealing with
>>> UTC
On 04/27/2015 09:34 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 06:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
timezone, so if Windows is going to get berated for not dealing with
UTC properly, then Fedora can be berated for not dealing with local
time
On 27 April 2015 at 06:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Time in UTC is just as absurd and arbitrary as time in a local
> timezone, so if Windows is going to get berated for not dealing with
> UTC properly, then Fedora can be berated for not dealing with local
> time properly.
>
Not really, as multiboot
There's no point in this being ideological, Fedora should tolerate the
RTC being in local time. Since the dawn of Windows, it's behaved very
consistently with respect to RTC time being local time. This is even
acknowledged in the UEFI spec as well, which permits local time plus
timezone plus daylig
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> it looks like OS/2 is capable of keeping its RTC in TAI (which AIUI is
> basically the same as UTC except that TAI doesn't have leap seconds, so TAI
> is "real time", and UTC is TAI interspersed with leap seconds, so both
> increase monotonically, but U
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-25 01:55 (UTC):
> The only reason Linux or any other OS needs to support having
> the RTC on local time for now is as a workaround to coexist with broken
> Windows.
Not investing resources in disturbing sleeping dogs is a reason that is
always important to some
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> > AFAIK, Windows is the only OS that has trouble using UTC for the RTC.
>
> Have you ever used DOS or OS/2? I don't remember ever seeing options at
> installation time to choose anything other than local in either one. Same for
> W95, W98, WXP & W7. How they
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-25 00:25 (UTC):
> Felix Miata composed:
>> > Just as a workaround, you CAN make a Windows box use UTC for the RTC...
>> Multiboot is not a universe limited to Windows and Linux, and certainly not
>> only the latest version of either. And, there's a whole LAN to
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> > Just as a workaround, you CAN make a Windows box use UTC for the RTC...
>
> Multiboot is not a universe limited to Windows and Linux, and certainly not
> only the latest version of either. And, there's a whole LAN to consider, not
> one PC in isolation.
AF
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-24 19:44 (UTC):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
>> All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
>> are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boo
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
> All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
> are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
> twice as long or longer
Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
twice as long or longer than anything else takes, waiting on all the
57 matches
Mail list logo
