On 25 May 2010 20:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Long-term, it would be nice for this to integrate with PackageKit
> somehow. Short-term, the simplest solution would seem to be to provide a
> stub package that provides: yelp and a yelp binary, and then have that
> binary do nothing other than tell t
On 05/26/2010 05:07 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2010 08:32 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>>
>> I'd be happy to firm up the design details
>> with you if you wanted to contribute patches.
>>
>
> I would recommend that noone do that unless Canonical's drops it's
> flawed copyright license agreemen
Hi,
I am packaging kupfer for fedora. I have already packaged
python-keyring which is a dependency for kupfer.
http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/python-keyring-0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm
kupfer SPEC used : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/kupfer.spec
kupfer src : http://kaizer.s
On 05/25/2010 08:44 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 17:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
>> Please, judge systemd on technical grounds, don't judge it on political,
>> or emotional grounds.
>
> I'm not trying to "judge" it at all. But when the first thing I really
> hear about a
On 05/26/2010 05:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> We did systemd because we thought that technically Upstart is
>> fundamentally flawed and misses out on so many opportunities.
>>
>
> And we think the same of systemd.
Who is "we"
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
->
waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
All python modules are not needed in runtime, don't check them. Also,
the package is noarch, optflags is not needed.
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedora
2010/5/26 Chen Lei :
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
> ->
> waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
>
>
> All python modules are not needed in runtime, don't check them. Also,
> the package is noarch, optflags is not needed.
>
>
>
> Chen Lei
>
Hi,
A merge is the most appropriate here. After all libjpeg-turbo just
offers a set of x86 specific SSE/MMX routines such as IDCT (maybe
huffman, but I didn't check that) that would be easily plugged into
ijg, but doesn't change the foundations (architecture and exposed
public API) of libjpeg.
Al
On 26/05/10 04:02, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:05:31AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/23/2010 04:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wr
Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> A merge is the most appropriate here. After all libjpeg-turbo just
> offers a set of x86 specific SSE/MMX routines such as IDCT (maybe
> huffman, but I didn't check that) that would be easily plugged into
> ijg, but doesn't change the foundations (architecture and exposed
> pu
Hi,
I just upgraded to F13. It's nice. But look at this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PreUpgrade says
> Common post-upgrade tasks ...
> Some packages may no longer be supported by the new release ...
> These can be identified with the following command:
> package-cleanup --orphans
So I did t
James Findley wrote:
> Modern systems just don't take very long to spawn awk. Or sed. Or cut.
> Or bash. IMO this sort of tradeoff between speed and ease of use hasn't
> been appropriate in 20 years.
>
> It's really not at all uncommon for me to need to modify an init script.
> There would be
On 26/05/10 10:49, Klaus Grue wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just upgraded to F13. It's nice. But look at this:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PreUpgrade says
>
>> Common post-upgrade tasks ...
>> Some packages may no longer be supported by the new release ...
>> These can be identified with the followin
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:01 +0100, James Findley wrote:
> On 26/05/10 04:02, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:05:31AM -0400, T
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:58:29AM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > ...
> > nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.6-1.2.fc11.x86_64
>
> my version is currently at:
> nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.4-19.fc12.i686
> on a fully updated F13 box.
That's look like a problem betwee F11 and F12:
% rpmdev-vercmp nss-softokn-f
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Net-Patricia-1.17_03 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596103
Summary: perl-Net-Patricia-1.17_03 is available
Product: Fe
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
> [...]
> 3) Cutting down on the forking by replacing some of the shell scripts... cool
> 3a) With C code
On 26/05/10 11:12, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:01 +0100, James Findley wrote:
>> On 26/05/10 04:02, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM, James Findley wrote:
> [...]
> Sorry. I like fast boots as much as the next person - this is just a
> bad trade. We only save ourselves (much) less than a second of boot
> time, but turn a common and simple practice into a major headache.
>
> If anyone has a bas
Tomasz Torcz writes:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:58:29AM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
>> > ...
>> > nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.6-1.2.fc11.x86_64
>>
>> my version is currently at:
>> nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.4-19.fc12.i686
>> on a fully updated F13 box.
>
> That's look like a problem betwee F11 and
Hi,
I ran a couple of preupgrades to go from F12 to F13 last night and it
all went very smoothly. I have only one slight criticism and that is
that the final stage of the upgrade takes a subjectively long time,
during which the progress indication is a frantic bouncing progress
bar. What is actual
On Tue, 25.05.10 23:02, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Why do you say "cgroups are a dead end"? Sure, Scott claims that, but
> > uh, it's not the only place where he is simply wrong and his claims
> > baseless. In fact it works really well, and is one of the strong points
> > in syst
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Tomasz Torcz writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:58:29AM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> > nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.6-1.2.fc11.x86_64
> >>
> >> my version is currently at:
> >> nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.4-19.fc12.i686
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 17:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Can you point us to where any background discussion has taken place
> > with Upstart folks?
>
> No, I cannot. Kay and I and a couple of others sat down at various LPC
> and GUADEC and discussed what we would like to see in an init
>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
> ->
> waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
>
>
> All python modules are not needed in runtime, don't check them. Also,
> the package is noarch, optflags is not
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > The problem we've found is that cgroups are too aggressive. They don't have
> > a
> > notion of sessions and count too much as being part of your service, so you
> > end
> > up with your screen session being counted as part o
On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:42:13 +0200
drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > [...]
> > 3) Cutting down on the forking by
Compose started at Wed May 26 08:15:13 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
almanah-0.7.3-1.fc14.i686 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.12
1:anerley-0.1.8-4.fc14.i686 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.12
anjal-0.3.2-2.fc14.i686
On 26. mai 2010 14:16, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:42:13 +0200
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 26/05/10 12:03, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM, James Findley wrote:
>> [...]
>> Sorry. I like fast boots as much as the next person - this is just a
>> bad trade. We only save ourselves (much) less than a second of boot
>> time, but turn a common and simple practice into a
2010/5/26 Ratnadeep Debnath :
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
>> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
>> ->
>> waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
>>
>>
>> All python modules are not needed in runtime, don't check them. Also,
>>
Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 13:46:20, Ratnadeep Debnath a écrit :
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
> > ->
> > waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
> >
> >
> > All python modules are not neede
Ratnadeep Debnath wrote, at 05/26/2010 08:46 PM +9:00:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
>> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
>> ->
>> waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-runtime-deps
>>
>>
>> All python modules are not needed in runtime, d
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:35 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> We did sit down and discuss things, and you convinced me that
> launchd-style activation was a useful thing to have. Then you went off
> and wrote systemd anyway.
>
If you want to add socket passing to upstart as well, we can tu
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
> While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
> Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the cold, most of
> them.
>
> I would be very, very wary of accepti
2010/5/26 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
>> regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
>> Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the cold, most of
>> them.
>>
>> I w
* Ola Thoresen [26/05/2010 14:39] :
>
> Would it not be more fruitful to discuss _why_ you (we?) need to edit
> the initscripts? Describe what functionality is missing or wrong in the
> default ones?
Editing environnement variables and indicating which specific interfaces
I want the daemon to l
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Klaus Grue wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just upgraded to F13. It's nice. But look at this:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PreUpgrade says
>
>> Common post-upgrade tasks ...
>> Some packages may no longer be supported by the new release ...
>> These can be identified with the follow
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 08:54:23AM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> > regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
> > Turn them in a C program and you left admins
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:58:29AM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>> ...
>>> nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.6-1.2.fc11.x86_64
>>
>> my version is currently at:
>> nss-softokn-freebl-3.12.4-19.fc12.i686
>> on a fully updated F13 box.
>
> That's look like a proble
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> -21 million.
>
> Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and
> configuration systems. I never edit initscripts to "configure"
> daemons, because they would just be overwritten at the next package
> upgrade. Configuration should be
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > -21 million.
> >
> > Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and
> > configuration systems. I never edit initscripts to "configure"
> > daemons, because they w
I got a BZ for a package I maintain from someone who needs multilib
support without using Mock:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595923
I found myself asking what the requirements are for a -devel package. In
general, do we support this in -devel libs or not? On IRC, I think I've
le
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:01:35PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > The problem we've found is that cgroups are too aggressive. They don't
> > > have a
> > > notion of sessions and count too much as being part of your service, s
On 26/05/10 14:24, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -21 million.
>>>
>>> Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and
>>> configuration systems. I never edit initscripts
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 08:54:23AM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>> > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
>> > regularly, and it is something most admins can do
On Wed, 26.05.10 14:01, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > The problem we've found is that cgroups are too aggressive. They don't
> > > have a
> > > notion of sessions and count too much as being part of your serv
Seth Vidal wrote:
> +20 million.
>
> I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts, considering how seldom
> they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in
> them by making them compiled.
Absolutely. I have no idea why you shouldn't use a small and light
interpreted l
Once upon a time, drago01 said:
> This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
> major slowdown factor
> by itself.
But they aren't a major slowdown factor (see the example numbers in this
thread).
And, if they were, any init scripts that are a problem could probably be
op
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 25.05.10 23:02, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > Why do you say "cgroups are a dead end"? Sure, Scott claims that, but
> > > uh, it's not the only place where he is simply wrong and his claims
> > > basel
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> > regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
> > Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>>> While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
>>> regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
>>> Turn
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Sanders
wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> +20 million.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts, considering how seldom
>> they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in
>> them by making them compiled.
>
> Absolutely. I h
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, drago01 said:
>> This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
>> major slowdown factor
>> by itself.
>
> But they aren't a major slowdown factor (see the example numbers in this
> thread).
They are fla
Once upon a time, drago01 said:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, drago01 said:
> >> This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
> >> major slowdown factor
> >> by itself.
> >
> > But they aren't a major slowdown factor (see the e
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:51:53PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> The patents for the former expired but apparently some fonts look
> worse with it so we decided to disable it.
> (I have been running with it enabled for years and for me stuff does
> look _way_ better with the bci ... but well this is a su
On 26/05/10 15:20, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>>> While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
>>> regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
>>> Turn them
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:35 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > We did sit down and discuss things, and you convinced me that
> > launchd-style activation was a useful thing to have. Then you went off
> > and wrote systemd anyway.
>
On Thursday 20 May 2010 20:37:17 David Malcolm wrote:
> Hope this seems sane - thoughts? (thanks for reading this far; I know
> this email is too long)
A short feedback, yes it seems sane and yes I read carefully the complete
message. ;-)
> Dave
--
José Abílio
_
2010/5/26 Yanko Kaneti :
> On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 14:26 +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>
>> llvm-2.7-2.fc14
>> ---
>> * Mon May 24 2010 Michel Salim - 2.7-2
>> - Exclude llm-gcc manpages
>> - Turn on apidoc generation
>> - Build with srcdir=objdir, otherwise clang doxygen build fails
>
>
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > [...]
> > 3) Cutting down on the forking by rep
On Wed, 26.05.10 12:35, Scott James Remnant (sc...@canonical.com) wrote:
> > and GUADEC and discussed what we would like to see in an init
> > system. And we had long discussions, but ultimately most of our ideas
> > were outright rejected by Scott, such as the launchd-style activation
> > and the
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> In systemd you can choose individually for each unit whether you want to
> allow it to continue run processes on shut down, whether you want the
> main process killed, the process group to be killed or the cgroup to be
> killed.
So in
On Wed, 26.05.10 15:52, Scott James Remnant (sc...@canonical.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:35 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > > We did sit down and discuss things, and you convinced me that
> > > launchd-style act
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 26.05.10 15:52, Scott James Remnant (sc...@canonical.com) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:35 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > >
> > > > We did sit
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I beg to differ. I've had to create or modify initscripts quite often,
> either as a sysadmin or a packager. If this is now going to require C
> coding skills, I'm not going to be able to do it. I don't think it's
> safe to assume that everyone who needs to write or modify
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:27:38PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 26.05.10 15:52, Scott James Remnant (sc...@canonical.com) wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at
On Wed, 26.05.10 10:01, James Findley (s...@gmx.com) wrote:
> > 3) Cutting down on the forking by replacing some of the shell scripts...
> > cool
> > 3a) With C code... really?
> >
>
> Yeah. I think this is odd too.
> The blog complains about how many awk spawns there are - but this looks
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdah...@redhat.c
On Wed, 26.05.10 12:27, seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> > Right, would be good if you could elaborate about that. I alead asked
> > you a couple of times about this. Would love to hear about the
> > reasoning.
>
> Scott, Lennart,
> A Proposal: maybe the two of you should continu
I've made some benchmarks starting a dummy service (do not call any programs
or kill) and a samba server on my notebook. I run those tests 4 times and
discarded the first one. Each test execute 100 times the command:
service dummy restart = 0,023ms
service smb restart = 0,158ms
c application = 0,0
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, just to point out, Scott and I and Kay had a private email
> exchange just about this yesterday and the day before yesterday. Was
> kinda one-sided, the public discussion is sometimes helpful to actually
> force those involved to
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:39:43PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Again the sysadmin case just implies that something *else* is broken.
Sure. As a distribution, we don't have control over upstream projects and
their assumptions for daemon startup, shutdown, status, etc. Sometimes, they
want odd things.
On Wed, 26.05.10 09:07, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahli
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> http://0pointer.de/public/dbus.service.
Note the ExecStartPre here, like most daemons, is conceptually busted.
There's no reason we shouldn't lay that file down once when the OS is
installed, and not check it every boot. Or alterna
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/5/26 Yanko Kaneti :
>> On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 14:26 +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>>
>>> llvm-2.7-2.fc14
>>> ---
>>> * Mon May 24 2010 Michel Salim - 2.7-2
>>> - Exclude llm-gcc manpages
>>> - Turn on apidoc generation
>>> - Build
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Well, that depends on configuration.
> In systemd you can choose individually for each unit whether you want to
> allow it to continue run processes on shut down, whether you want the
> main process killed, the process group to be kille
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Oh come on. Thanks for turning this into something personal.
>
You did that last week - I got forwarded logs from #systemd. That's
probably why I wasn't in a great mood with you this morning ;-)
> I'd prefer it we would keep this di
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 26.05.10 09:07, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, L
On 05/26/2010 12:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It is not like you want to edit the scripts all the time, so there is
>> no reason for them being scripts.
>
> I beg to differ. I've had to create or modify initscripts quite often,
> either as a sysadmin or a packager. If this is now going to requ
ons 2010-05-26 klockan 10:01 +0100 skrev James Findley:
> It's really not at all uncommon for me to need to modify an init script.
> There would be much rage if in order to do this I had to download the
> SRPM, extract the init code, figure out what I needed to change, modify
> it, recompile
Le dimanche 23 mai 2010 à 00:34 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> ATM everything looks rosy. I just finished porting over all F13
> installed-by-default daemons to socket activation, and a few more (and
> the patches are good enough to be upstreamable).
For this kind of stuff I strongly sugg
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:51:53PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > The patents for the former expired but apparently some fonts look
> > worse with it so we decided to disable it.
> > (I have been running with it enabled for years and for me stu
Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 19:39 +0200, Alexander Boström a écrit :
> ons 2010-05-26 klockan 10:01 +0100 skrev James Findley:
>
> > It's really not at all uncommon for me to need to modify an init script.
> > There would be much rage if in order to do this I had to download the
> > SRPM, extra
+1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Martin Sourada
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:51:53PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > The patents for the former expired but apparently some fonts look
>> > worse with it so we decided to disable it.
>
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> > regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
> > Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:30:56PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> Depends on the criteria you use. The "with bytecode" version has better
> kerning, better shapes, better flow, but is blurry (yeah, without
Not just blurry, though -- awkwardly blurry. At screen resolution, in fact,
I think it's pus
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:08 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> > > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> > > regularly, and it is something most admins can do with
Hi all,
On 05/22/2010 05:55 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> hi there,
>
> Can it be updated to upstream version in rawhide ?
>
> The libjpeg version(6b) in Fedora is quite old(27-Mar-1998).
> And newer versions were released on:
>
> Version 7 27-Jun-2009
> Version 8 10-Jan-2010
> Version 8a 2
On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:20:08 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Regarding the LISTEN_PID env var:
>
> environment variables are normally inherited when forking/execing. We
> want to make sure that only the process we actually start ourselves
> parses and handles LISTEN_FDS. We want to avoid that
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > I beg to differ. I've had to create or modify initscripts quite often,
> > either as a sysadmin or a packager. If this is now going to require C
> > coding skills, I'm not going to be able to do it. I don't think it's
> > safe to ass
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:32 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> OTOH, why is this even a sub-topic in this sub-topic of a thread? I'd
> love to see some numbers from the complainers about scripting being
> slow. I have a normal Fedora 13 x86_64 system that boots through
> initscripts in under 1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Mamoru Tasaka
wrote:
>
> Ratnadeep Debnath wrote, at 05/26/2010 08:46 PM +9:00:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> >> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LDFLAGS="-lm" waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
> >> ->
> >> waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --no-ru
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Regarding the LISTEN_PID env var:
>
> environment variables are normally inherited when forking/execing. We
> want to make sure that only the process we actually start ourselves
> parses and handles LISTEN_FDS. We want to avoid that if this daemon
> might spawn some oth
On 05/26/2010 06:57 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Ola Thoresen [26/05/2010 14:39] :
>>
>> Would it not be more fruitful to discuss _why_ you (we?) need to edit
>> the initscripts? Describe what functionality is missing or wrong in the
>> default ones?
>
> Editing environnement variables and indic
James Findley wrote:
> You're comparing the wrong thing here - I was demonstrating that it
> doesn't take noticeably longer to spawn awk than a small C app on modern
> systems.
> thus using:
> for i in {1..1000}; do awk 'BEGIN{print "Hello World"}' > /dev/null; done
> for i in {1..1000}; do ./hello
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sssd-1.2.0-12.fc13
Appears to be in limbo.
Status: pending
sgallagh - 2010-05-07 21:51:09
This update has been submitted for testing.
bodhi - 2010-05-08 16:09:51
This update has been pushed to testing
sgallagh - 2010-05-18 18:34:06
This update has
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 15:03 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sssd-1.2.0-12.fc13
>
> Appears to be in limbo.
>
> Status: pending
>
> sgallagh - 2010-05-07 21:51:09
> This update has been submitted for testing.
> bodhi - 2010-05-08 16:09:51
> This upda
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> I got a BZ for a package I maintain from someone who needs multilib
> support without using Mock:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595923
Please send a new message instead of replying to an unrelated one. It
matters for mail clients which support proper thr
Jeremy Sanders (jer...@jeremysanders.net) said:
> Something like Lua would be very good. The overheads over C would be
> minimal, and it would have the advantage of being editable.
>
> I've had to edit an init script to get something working properly many
> times.
If you're going to want them
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
