Lennart Poettering wrote:
> You know, not even its former editor seems to to believe that (or that
> it was a problem), judging by the message this sarcastic posting of his
> sends:
>
> http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=236
>
> ;-)
Hey, my arguments are not the 2 "anti" arguments he quotes. ;-)
I have
2012/1/28 Ralf Corsepius :
>
> Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick Windows?
> No /usr, no /bin => /redhat. Seems to be the spirit behind all this.
>
> Ralf
>
The rhetoric spoils the argument. Various people inside of Red Hat are
either for this, against this, wanting to see where th
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 11:27 +, phantomjinx wrote:
> Morning people,
>
> Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
> the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
> going forward.
>
> I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16
On Sat, 28.01.12 11:29, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >
> >[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
> >that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
> >would we care now?
>
> >I feel mi
On Fri, 27.01.12 22:40, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > people targetting FHS compliant systems (unless the FHS changes)
>
> That's the biggest flaw of this "feature": It violates the FHS!
You know, not even its former editor seems to to believe that (or
Morning people,
Having just caught onto this thread about half way through and now read
the various pages concerning the topic, I am still in the dark about
going forward.
I have 3 machines running F15 that I am upgrading to F16 shortly. I have
been using yum to upgrade 2 of them since Fedora Cor
On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
would we care now?
I feel mildly insulted by that argument.
Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
> /user feature that I think you would benefit from reading it.
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
>
> If you have read it, then I fear yo
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The reason yum upgrades are not supported is specifically to leave
> open the possibility of doing significant changes that are not
> compatible with yum upgrades, if the significant change has a large
> enough benefit to be worth the pain of breaking the yum upgrade path.
On 01/27/2012 07:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
/user feature t
On 01/27/2012 06:33 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of "always"). Third
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 09:24 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
> > i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
> > upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
>
> +1
>
> IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
> the "fea
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 07:40 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:26:01PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Tosh
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> people targetting FHS compliant systems (unless the FHS changes)
That's the biggest flaw of this "feature": It violates the FHS!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Nils Philippsen wrote:
> You seem to imply doing things in %pretrans is somehow safer than
> somewhere else. I don't think so -- as Panu said: "The whole %pretrans
> thing is a scary hack that's best seen as a last resort to do the
> minimal required tweak that just cannot be done elsewhere..."
I
On 01/28/2012 12:59 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>
> So this is all for the benefit of the/some "Vendor"?
??? Read the pages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
If you have questions, please be specific.
Rahul
--
On 01/27/2012 01:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
/user feature th
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
> change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the
/user feature that I think you would benefit from reading
On 01/27/2012 07:32 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
perhaps this change is wanted/needed by the new init system
No, systemd does not care.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 01/27/2012 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> why in the world is a currently useless "feature" much more forced
> than the change of the init-system?
>
perhaps this change is wanted/needed by the new init system for some
reason that may not be apparent at the moment ...
resource us
Am 27.01.2012 18:33, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
>> On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of "
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
> On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> >>Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
> >>definitely long value of "always"). Third party scripts, scripts that have
> >>
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of "always"). Third party scripts, scripts that have
been in use on local systems, written by people who have l
Am 27.01.2012 18:05, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
>> Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
>> definitely long value of "always"). Third party scripts, scripts that have
>> been in use on local systems, written by people
Am 27.01.2012 18:00, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why we absolutely HAVE to change directories to symlinks
>>> when we KNO
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> Actually... we will "always" need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
> definitely long value of "always"). Third party scripts, scripts that have
> been in use on local systems, written by people who have long since passed
> on (to new jobs), people
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why we absolutely HAVE to change directories to symlinks
> > when we KNOW RPM doesn't support this, and that in directories
Am 27.01.2012 14:15, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> there is no limited sense of security
>> each machine has a clone for backup-reasons
>> this clones are updated first
>> so after that i know the exactly behavior
>
> In a strict sense, no,
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 23:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/118#comment:7
>
> Well, IMHO if this is not safe to do in a %pretrans, it is not safe to do at
> all.
You seem to imply doing things in %pretrans is somehow safer than
somewher
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:51 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
> >> with various packaging bits. Checking t
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 26.01.2012 15:07, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> >>> For the sake of completeness:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As I've already stated multiple
> times, the DVD MUST be fixed to include the updates repository for
> upgrades
And that means that bug 998 needs to be fixed.
Installing packages from the ISO image without checking them is OK, because a
security-conscious user will have ve
ing more flexible for features in leaf packages.
> Having a single feature freeze day for everything just doesn't work.
PS: I still think both the LD DSO "feature" and this UsrMove "feature" are
"features" we'd better do without. They bring
, and that in directories as essential
as /bin etc. The whole UsrMove "feature" is flawed and I don't understand
why it didn't get thrown out immediately when proposed.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Greg wrote:
> as i will say again i have no problems downloading a LiveCD or a DvD. if
> i have had 1 DE installed i'll download a LiveCD only rather than a DvD,
Have you even READ what I wrote? Live CDs CANNOT UPGRADE, only reinstall.
And no, I will definitely NOT reinstall at every release. Rei
Ed Marshall wrote:
> Without revealing my own preference about rolling releases: how would
> a change like this, whose deployment is *significantly* eased with
> install-time magic, be deployed in a rolling-release world?
It would be guaranteed total and utter chaos.
Kevin Kofler
--
dev
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> As you've been pointing out, this is a recipe for alpha slippage (and
> since recently we've been slipping all later milestones, a slip in alpha
> means a slip to the release) but I don't think the feature owners are
> technically doing anything wrong under the current poli
Am 26.01.2012 17:19, schrieb Ed Marshall:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> Not really true. "yum upgrade" will be supported, but it needs a little help
>> with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
>> that dracut can convert your filesyste
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Not really true. "yum upgrade" will be supported, but it needs a little help
> with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
> that dracut can convert your filesystem. After this filesystem conversion, yum
> upgr
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:26:01PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > IIRC from the discussion i
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> >
>> > IIRC from the discussion in FPC meetings, there should be a way to make yum
>> > upgrades work but you'd f
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:40:33AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn
> > and the "feature" reverted.
>
> PS: Oh, and I don't see why this cannot be fixed by a %pretrans scriptlet in
> filesystem rather than a script w
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:25:31AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > IIRC from the discussion in FPC meetings, there should be a way to make yum
> > upgrades work but you'd first have to boot up specially and run an initial
> > upgrade s
Am 26.01.2012 15:51, schrieb Frank Murphy:
> On 26/01/12 14:43, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>
>> Not really true. "yum upgrade" will be supported, but it needs a little help
>> with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
>> that dracut can convert your filesystem. After th
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
>> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
>> attached bug [2] I was a little shoc
On 26/01/12 14:43, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Not really true. "yum upgrade" will be supported, but it needs a little help
with a special initramfs and an additional kernel command line parameter, so
that dracut can convert your filesystem. After this filesystem conversion, yum
upgrade will work withou
Am 26.01.2012 15:07, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
>>> For the sake of completeness:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
after a yum upgrade you can verify tha
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
> Hi All,
>
> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
> attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
> between releases would be e
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> > For the sake of completeness:
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
> >> things are fine BEFORE r
Am 26.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Nils Philippsen:
> For the sake of completeness:
>
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
>> things are fine BEFORE reboot (bootloader-config,
>> package-cleanup --problems, ), optim
For the sake of completeness:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> after a yum upgrade you can verify that the most important
> things are fine BEFORE reboot (bootloader-config,
> package-cleanup --problems, ), optimize/correct things
> you know are not fine after the upgr
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:42:15PM +1100, Greg wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 7:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
> >
> >As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
> >upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh ins
Am 26.01.2012 12:29, schrieb Greg:
> On 26/01/2012 8:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> where is the improvement or does anything get better if things
>> worked for years got damaged? you definition of improvement
>> must have a bug!
>
> first thing. i agree that the Linux Filesystem needs to be clea
On 26/01/2012 8:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
where is the improvement or does anything get better if things
worked for years got damaged? you definition of improvement
must have a bug!
first thing. i agree that the Linux Filesystem needs to be cleaned up.
by doing what redhat/Fedora is progressin
Am 26.01.2012 10:42, schrieb Greg:
> if one doesnt like it then all i can suggest is move to a different Distro.
> just because it's gonna interupt people from using " yum upgrade dist or
> whatever. this is the 21st century yanno. technology does improve
> or get better.
where is the improve
On 26/01/2012 7:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh installations),
which means the process is completely broken due to t
On 01/26/2012 02:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
>> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
>> attached bug [2] I was a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
>> upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
>
> +1
>
> IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
> the "feature"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
>> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
>> attached bug [
25, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 26.01.2012 08:06, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Reindl Harald"
>>> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
>>> S
I wrote:
> IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn
> and the "feature" reverted.
PS: Oh, and I don't see why this cannot be fixed by a %pretrans scriptlet in
filesystem rather than a script we have to run by hand. That's what
%pretrans is for. (We successfully use
Greg wrote:
> i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
Live CDs cannot be used to upgrade existing systems.
As for the DVD, it does not include the updates repository when doing
upgrades (you can only add additional repositories for fresh installations),
which means the process
Reindl Harald wrote:
> i made several HUNDRET of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
> upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
+1
IMHO this is a showstopper and approval for UsrMove should be withdrawn and
the "feature" reverted.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
Am 26.01.2012 08:06, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Reindl Harald"
>> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking "yum upgrade&quo
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM
> Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking "yum upgrade" upgrades from older
> releases to F17?
>
>
>
&
Am 26.01.2012 05:02, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On 01/26/2012 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> i see really nothing wrong in demanding not break things randomly without
>> VERY good reasons and in this context it does relly not matter
>> if opensource /paid / whatever
>
> Nobody breaks things
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:53:33AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.01.2012 04:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> > On 01/26/2012 08:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 26.01.2012 03:57, schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
> >
> >>> And realize that Fedora is a community project with no guarante
On 01/26/2012 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i see really nothing wrong in demanding not break things randomly without
> VERY good reasons and in this context it does relly not matter
> if opensource /paid / whatever
Nobody breaks things randomly. Sometimes changes have unintentional
side effe
Am 26.01.2012 04:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On 01/26/2012 08:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 26.01.2012 03:57, schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
>
>>> And realize that Fedora is a community project with no guarantee
>>> whatsoever.
>>
>> and that is a valueable argument for breaking things
>> w
On 01/26/2012 08:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.01.2012 03:57, schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
>>
>> And realize that Fedora is a community project with no guarantee
>> whatsoever.
>
> and that is a valueable argument for breaking things
> without really good reasons?
The problem isn't the po
Am 26.01.2012 03:57, schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.01.2012 03:03, schrieb Greg:
>>> On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is s
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 26.01.2012 03:03, schrieb Greg:
> > On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
> >> upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
> >
> > i don't have any proble
Am 26.01.2012 03:03, schrieb Greg:
> On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
>> upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
>
> i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
for one simple desktop, but realiz
On 26/01/2012 12:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i made several HUNDRED of dist-upgrades with yum since FC3 and
upgrade via DVD/Preupgrade is simply UNACEPPTABLE
i don't have any problems downloading a DvD, or a LiveCD
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.o
Am 25.01.2012 23:48, schrieb Peter Robinson:
> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
> attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
> between releases would be explicitly b
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
> attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
> between
Hi All,
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
between releases would be explicitly broken due to this feature.
Yes, I know that i
Am 30.10.2011 23:02, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> On Mon, 24.10.11 13:05, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Here's an attempt to summarize the rationale for merging /bin, /sbin,
> /usr/sbin into /usr/bin with different words collecting the various points
> raised:
>
> a) the split betw
On Mon, 24.10.11 13:05, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
Here's an attempt to summarize the rationale for merging /bin, /sbin,
/usr/sbin into /usr/bin with different words collecting the various points
raised:
a) the split between sbin and bin requires psychic powers from
upstream devel
On Fri, 28.10.11 14:26, Zing (z...@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>
> > Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
>
> I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
> piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove wou
Am 28.10.2011 16:26 schrieb "Zing" :
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>
> > Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
>
> I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
> piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove would then make fedora sys
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:04 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Read the rpm snippet on the feature page, please.
I just briefly browsed the feature page and the requirement on initramfs
piqued me. Maybe I'm wrong, but usrmove would then make fedora systems
from now on specifically require the use o
One thing I'm not clear on is when the switch between the initramfs and the
actual / filesystem is performed. For instance, what does the user get if
they boot single user? What do they get if they boot single user and /usr
is on an nfs filesystem?
-Toshio
pgpC7SFu4zoLJ.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 08:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> The strategy is:
>
> - Replace binaries in /bin /sbin /usr/sbin /lib /lib64 with symlinks to
> their counterpart in /usr. Symlinking is done in rpm %post. Symlinks are
> part of the fi
This feature is going to cause a lot of churn.
Aside from the huge changes within fedora I
think a bigger issue will be downstream of fedora
where third party packages and configs will
require large changes. I would worry we might
alienate our users a bit with this?
Now I'm all for clean up, but
On 10/27/2011 08:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
>> One big question though: can RPM handle such a change? IIRC, when the
>> switch from /etc/rc.d/init.d to /etc/init.d was made, initially
>> everything was going to be moved and the old paths symlinked for a few
>>
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
> One big question though: can RPM handle such a change? IIRC, when the
> switch from /etc/rc.d/init.d to /etc/init.d was made, initially
> everything was going to be moved and the old paths symlinked for a few
> releases. However, there was some problem with
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 02:51, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:46, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> 4.6. /usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages
>>
>> 4.6.1. Purpose
>>
>> /usr/lib includes object files and libraries. ^[22] On some systems, it
>> may also include internal binaries
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:34:45AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > In context, at least, this is wrong advice as it's a violation of the FHS:
> >
> > http://pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE22
> >
> > """
> > Purpose
> > /usr/lib includes obje
On 10/27/2011 03:01 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 11:00 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> ===
>> #f
On 10/27/2011 11:00 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> ===
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
> ===
"all @RHs are
assholes". RH is a big enterprise, so they inevitably have people with
all kinds of attitudes and skills on their payrole - Rest assured, the
vast majority is doing an excellent job, but there are a few who do not.
But ... this "UsrMove" feature ... with all due
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:51, David Tardon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>
>> That would also mean that libreoffice (using /usr/lib*/libreoffice)
>> should have all binaries there? I guess not.
>
> It has
On 10/26/2011 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:40 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
===
* Discussion abou
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:46, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> 4.6. /usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages
>
> 4.6.1. Purpose
>
> /usr/lib includes object files and libraries. ^[22] On some systems, it
> may also include internal binaries that are not intended to be executed
> directly by users o
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>
> That would also mean that libreoffice (using /usr/lib*/libreoffice)
> should have all binaries there? I guess not.
It has always been that way. There are only shell scripts in /usr/
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> Having said that, the split between /sbi
On 10/27/2011 10:34 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonessaid:
> Having said that, the split between /
On 10/26/2011 06:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
historical one, i
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Besides this, one may have the opinion, that no binaries should be
> allowed in /usr/lib/. Fedora never enforced this rule, because RH has a
> tradition of being sloppy wrt. /usr/lib/.
One may also have the opinion that you voi
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
