Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:45 -0400 David Malcolm wrote: ...snip... > - build ordering was much more important than I hoped; most of the > failures in this run seem to be due to incomplete deps in root.log. I > intend to retry these from the now-existing CVS tags, with a better > build ordering

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jon Masters
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:35 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this? > > > > There's some motivation here: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/project

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jesse Keating writes: > master -> origin/master > f13 -> origin/f13/master > f12 -> origin/f12/master Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so that "git checkout -t origin/whatever" does the right thing. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fin

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread drago01
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:35 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> > > >> > > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this? >> > >> > Ther

Re: glibc heads up

2010-07-22 Thread pbrobin...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote, at 07/22/2010 03:45 PM +9:00: >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:54:32AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >>> right now a glibc build is going on that has --enablekernel=2.6.32 >>> >>> from Jakub >>> >>> Bumping that from 2.6

Re: glibc heads up

2010-07-22 Thread Manuel Wolfshant
On 07/22/2010 11:30 AM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Well, as I firstly thought so, I tried scratch build with adding "uname -a" >> and >> it returned the below, for example. >> >> Linux x86-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org 2.6.32-44.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 >> 15:47:50 EDT 2010 i686 i686 i386

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Nikola Pajkovsky
On 07/22/2010 10:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jesse Keating writes: > >> master -> origin/master >> f13 -> origin/f13/master >> f12 -> origin/f12/master > > Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so > that "git checkout -t origin/whatever" does the right thing.

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 07/21/2010 01:55 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > >>> If rawhide development is supposed to happen on origin/master, the

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Christof Damian
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:55, Jon Masters wrote: >> >> This should probably say "systemd for F16" > > +1 FWIW. I'm not a huge sysv fanboi either, but I do care about the > experience of sysadmins and the upstream for other projects, and I would > like to see some soak time for this before everyon

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jesse Keating writes: > > > master -> origin/master > > f13 -> origin/f13/master > > f12 -> origin/f12/master > > Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so > that "git checkout -t origin/whatever" does the

Re: glibc heads up

2010-07-22 Thread Thomas Moschny
2010/7/21 Dennis Gilmore : > what this does mean is that you can no longer use rhel5 to build  fedora 14 > and newer packages.  though you had to jump though hoops already to do this That also means many people will not be able to run f14 on their vservers. - Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@l

[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst & DBIx::Class powered Wiki

2010-07-22 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=502358 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added --

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Jan Vcelak
On Thursday 22 July 2010 10:19:20, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jesse Keating writes: > > master -> origin/master > > f13 -> origin/f13/master > > f12 -> origin/f12/master > > Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so > that "git checkout -t origin/whatever" does the rig

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jan Vcelak writes: > On Thursday 22 July 2010 10:19:20, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Jesse Keating writes: >> > master -> origin/master >> > f13 -> origin/f13/master >> > f12 -> origin/f12/master >> >> Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so >> that "git checkout -t

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:21:07AM +0200, drago01 wrote: > FWIW this is the reason why upstart pretty much ended being a renamed > sysvinit without offering any benefits because people are afraid of > change. That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally introduce improvem

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:06:34 +1000 Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > It is needed: > > > > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then > > # For new installations, hook unit file into the > > appropriate places via symlinks /usr/bin/systemd-install enable > > --realize=reload %{unit name}.service > /dev/null 2>

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > Or to turn this around: many folks parse the output of ifconfig. And > that's just wrong on so many levels. We try to do better and actually > provide you with a proper interface for people who want to parse our > output. For a counter-example: the LVM

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > The logic behind chkconfig is exposed in many ways in the user > interface, for example in the chkconfig command line, e.g. > commands such as "resetpriorities", and stuff like that. The common chkconfig options are on, off, and probably --list. For s

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said: > If this is how you normally deal with problems, I am beginning to > understand why pulseaudio has had such a bad reputation. A) You read > everything that matt said as a personal attack of trying to find deep > fault and then you go off in a temper ta

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then > /usr/bin/systemd-install disable --realize=yes %{unit name}.service > > /dev/null 2>&1 || : > fi Umm, that's copying one of the much-mocked things of Windows, where you click "Start" to shutdown. "systemd-install" to

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik said: > I'm not sure it's a good idea for udev to come up as soon as Anaconda > installs the rpm on a freshly-partitioned and formatted disk, before the > rest of the system gets installed. Isn't it against the packaging guidelines to actually start something f

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > So, please, when Jef finishes his work, or I find the time to, we will > provide chkconfig compat too (at least to a certain degree). However, > doing this is actually just the cherry on top of the topping of our > delicous cake. But even without the ch

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread drago01
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:21:07AM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> FWIW this is the reason why upstart pretty much ended being a renamed >> sysvinit without offering any benefits because people are afraid of >> change. > > That's what we call a suc

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread Orcan Ogetbil
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:45 -0400 > David Malcolm wrote: > > ...snip... > >> - build ordering was much more important than I hoped; most of the >> failures in this run seem to be due to incomplete deps in root.log.  I >> intend to retry these f

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:00:45AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 20:02 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > I'm planning to do a partial mass-rebuild for Python 2.7. > > > > This would cover all Python 2 users within the distribution, roughly > > 1000 src.rpms. > > > > Some notes

Fedora 14 Alpha Blocker Bug Review Meeting #2, 2010-07-23 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST)

2010-07-22 Thread John Poelstra
When: Friday, 2010-07-23 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST) Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net It's that time again: blocker bug review meeting time! Friday is the SECOND blocker bug review meeting for the Fedora 14 Alpha. Here are the current bugs listed as blocking the Alpha release. We'll be

Proventesters please test gnome-packagekit

2010-07-22 Thread Richard Hughes
Hey, If you're a proventester (or whatever they are called now) please can you test https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-packagekit-2.30.3-1.fc13 -- it's got a few nice bugfixes including one which is a crasher and is generating a fair amount of dupes. Thanks. Richard. -- devel mailing

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:36PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally > > introduce improvements over the next few releases. > Once you start doing that people will cry because it is different from > what they are used too (does not matt

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 07:31:22AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > > if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then > > /usr/bin/systemd-install disable --realize=yes %{unit name}.service > > > /dev/null 2>&1 || : > > fi > > Umm, that's copying one of the much-mocked thi

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread Mike McGrath
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 20:02 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > I'm planning to do a partial mass-rebuild for Python 2.7. > > > > This would cover all Python 2 users within the distribution, roughly > > 1000 src.rpms. > > > > Some notes can be seen at: > > h

[Test-Announce] Fedora 14 Alpha Blocker Bug Review Meeting #1 2010-07-23 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST)

2010-07-22 Thread John Poelstra
When: Friday, 2010-07-23 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST) Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net It's that time again: blocker bug review meeting time! Friday is the SECOND blocker bug review meeting for the Fedora 14 Alpha. Here are the current bugs listed as blocking the Alpha release. We'll be

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread drago01
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:36PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> > That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally >> > introduce improvements over the next few releases. >> Once you start doing that people will cry because

orphaning minirpc

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Goode
I am orphaning minirpc, it is declared deprecated upstream: http://minirpc.cs.cmu.edu/ and we at CMU are not using it anymore for our projects. It also has some never-fixed bugs occasionally triggered by its test suite, related to threading and (probably) use-after-free. Because of this, the test

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Cliff Nadler
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> (And >> that those who have to pay this cost are "crying".) > > Everyone has to pay this cost and everyone gets something in return. That's not what you are hearing from the system admin

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, drago01 said: > No I am just saying that a change isn't bad because it is a change. And others (like me) are just saying that a change isn't good because it is new. There's a middle ground that needs to be found, but repeating either of "change==bad" or "new==good" doesn't help

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 21.07.10 23:56, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 05:25:19AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Now, after discussing this over 2years with many folks and reading up on > > launchd and SMF and the opinions on the net, we then distilled of the > > requ

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 03:55, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote: > > I was pretty clear in everything you cut off about the whole "You know > > what people need, they need this" and the whole developers making things > > for sysadmins because they think sysadmins need it thing. 0pointer.de is

[dist-git] gitweb or list of all available Git repositories?

2010-07-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
Hi, We are working on an Eclipse plug-in for Fedora Packagers, which provides tooling for RPM packaging for Fedora (without needing to resort to CLI). Since we are planning on supporting dist-git, it would be nice if there was a list of all Git repos we could query. For example, somebody intere

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 09:13, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote: > IMHO, systemd seems to cram a bunch of existing things (init, inetd, > chkconfig, service, pstree, etc.) together, and the assumption is that > this is new and good. I don't really agree. For example, if on-demand > activation for

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for > sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our > two opposite opinions even out in a zero sum game. > Oh, if we only had a committee

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:52:06PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > >> > That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally > >> > introduce improvements over the next few releases. > >> Once you start doing that people will cry because it is different from > >> what they are used too (d

[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst & DBIx::Class powered Wiki

2010-07-22 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=502358 --- Comment #18 from Iain Arnell 2010-07-22 11:13:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) Thanks for picking this one up. (And the

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:11:31AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:52:06PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > Everyone has to pay this cost and everyone gets something in return. > > And the way you present this as an _overall win_ is by emphasizing the > returns and decreasing th

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 08:39 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:45 -0400 > > David Malcolm wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > >> - build ordering was much more important than I hoped; most of the > >> failures in this run see

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > 1. Parallelization: we can completely get rid of any serialization of > startup. We can start *every* signle daemon at the same time in one > big step, regardless whether one of them needs another. i.e. we can > start avahi at the sam

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > 3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always > connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single > connection while doing that! Particularly for stateless protocols > (such as DNS or syslog) we can auto

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Mike McGrath
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > 1. Parallelization: we can completely get rid of any serialization of > > startup. We can start *every* signle daemon at the same time in one > > big step, regardless whether one of them

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:42:19AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > In addition to circular deps, have any studies been done on disk > contention when you just start everything all at once? If we're not > careful we could actually increase boot time in some scenarios. I guess > one way to check would

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:29, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > they hence would have needed to be started one after the other, so > > that every service using another services can be sure it can talk to > > the one it needs. I mean, how awesome is that? We can completely > > remove *any* kind o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 10:42, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote: > > how do you deal with circular dependencies in this case? > > I mean what will happen ? Will all services just deadlock? > > Malfunction ? Anything that guarantees correct initialization and > > behavior ? > > In addition to cir

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Miloslav Trmač
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200: > If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn > uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless > whether systemd is used or not. > > Cyclic dependencies cause deadlocks. Introducing systemd has

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 18:48, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote: > Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200: > > If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn > > uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless > > whether systemd is used or

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:31, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > 3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always > > connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single > > connection while doing th

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 11:28 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 08:39 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:45 -0400 > > > David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > > ...snip... > > > > > >> - build ordering was muc

Re: glibc heads up

2010-07-22 Thread Dennis Gilmore
On Thursday, July 22, 2010 01:45:37 am Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:54:32AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > right now a glibc build is going on that has --enablekernel=2.6.32 > > > > from Jakub > > > > Bumping that from 2.6.18 used currently means e.g. to get rid of com

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 07/13/2010 07:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Heya, > > as many of you probably know systemd got accepted as feature for F-14 by > FESCO a few weeks back. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd I just want to say that I am excited to explore this new system, but very concerned

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Looking at what Windows and MacOS do in this area is probably > healthy. Both systems rearrange sectors on disk and parallelize as much > as possible. I think that's bascially a good recipe we should follow > too. systemd caters for the

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:00, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for > > sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our > > two o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Miloslav Trmač
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 19:12 +0200: > What was discussed by FESCO was whether we should make it the default in > F14. And FESCO said yes. That's not what I understand from http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-06-15/fesco.2010-06-15-19.35.log.html#l-446 . Was

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 09:11, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > Looking at what Windows and MacOS do in this area is probably > > healthy. Both systems rearrange sectors on disk and parallelize as much > > as possible. I think

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:07 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: [snip] > I messed up, and there's a bug in which python doesn't startup if > python-devel is not installed, which led to the majority of the "noarch" > builds failing. [1] > > Sorry about that. I'm working on a fixed python package. Hope

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:22 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > I am not getting the message from this thread that systemd developers > believe that. Rather, we get "it's clearly a matter of taste and > bike-shedding", and "I probably shouldn't even have bothered to even reply > to this mail of yours."

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Can we please stick to the technical issues here? That is, how we should > implement systemd to make the transition from upstart/sysv as painless > as possible, and perhaps some semantic improvements to the parameters > and command names Le

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > abstract computer object. > > Dave, I am not a native speaker, but I have the exact (or may b

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread seth vidal
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init > system configuration

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 01:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jesse Keating writes: > >> master -> origin/master >> f13 -> origin/f13/master >> f12 -> origin/f12/master > > Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so > that "git check

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 02:19 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Jesse Keating writes: >> >>> master -> origin/master >>> f13 -> origin/f13/master >>> f12 -> origin/f12/master >> >> Please don't. The

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:35:22 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 11:29, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > they hence would have needed to be started one after the other, so > > > that every service using another services can be sure it can talk > > > to the one it need

Re: Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

2010-07-22 Thread Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 02:16 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On 07/21/2010 01:55 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: >>> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: On 07/20/2010 08:

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:04:44 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > But also HTTP is a good candidate. When apache shuts down it closes > the listening socket but will finish processing the requests it > already began to process. Would apache use socket actviation like > this it would hence be restart

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:40:53 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > > abstract computer o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init > system configuration shall be re

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Alexander Boström
ons 2010-07-21 klockan 09:30 -0800 skrev Jeff Spaleta: > I'm not part of the zero regression fanclub. But I'd like to help do > what is reasonable to minimize the frustration of introducing a new > way of doing things. The deprecation warnings are reasonable to me. We > aren't going to reduce that

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I hope this simplification sounds good to many of you. It does. Thanks. -- Matthew Miller Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences -- devel mail

Re: [dist-git] gitweb or list of all available Git repositories?

2010-07-22 Thread Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 07:41 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > We are working on an Eclipse plug-in for Fedora Packagers, which > provides tooling for RPM packaging for Fedora (without needing to > resort to CLI). Since we are planning on supporting dist-gi

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Alexander Boström
ons 2010-07-21 klockan 22:13 -0400 skrev Chuck Anderson: > But for basics such as "chkconfig service on|off|--list", there should > be compatibility. Yes. I basically use: chkconfig foo on chkconfig foo off env LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 chkconfig --list | fgrep :on |awk '{print $1} The rest I don't real

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 01:14 AM, Alexander Boström wrote: > But the thing to remember: If systemd-install is too complicated to use, > people will keep using chkconfig and service instead and ignore the > warning. That's why it's important to have something that supports > everything that systemd does while

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:37:20AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: [...] > I'd wager that if we were having this discussion in a room with the > very same people, I think the emotional reactions over the areas of > conflict would be much reduced and personality quirk mismatches > wouldn't cause so much

Re: NetworkManager-0.8.1-0.4 updates not pushed?

2010-07-22 Thread Dan Williams
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 12:52 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 13:36 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > F-13's NetworkManager is currently still at version > > 0.8.1-0.1.git20100510.fc13, which on my Sony netbook intermittently > > disconnects on some networks, an

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: [...] > Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and > human readable tools. "status" is human readable. "show"/"check" are > computer-parsable. Mildly disagree. It is nice to be able to remember from people-use what the output looks like when

[389-devel] Please review: Bug 617013 - repl-monitor.pl use cpu upto 90%

2010-07-22 Thread Rich Megginson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617013 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=433803&action=diff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=433803&action=edit -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be > worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to > disable all native systemd config files and let me run sysinit style > files when the situation demands... ie crap

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 20:13, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > > It appears that you're looking at this from the point of view of chkconfig > > as a tool which causes certain manipuations of the system to happen > > (symlinks changed). That's the backwards appro

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this? > > > > There's some motivation here: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html > I was pretty clear in ev

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Karel Zak
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 01:29:03AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > And btw, you can even create automount points via > comment=systemd.automount as mount option in /etc/fstab. You don't even > have to place an .automount file anywhere. For the API file systems > however we decided to do just tha

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:43 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:07 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > [snip] > > > I messed up, and there's a bug in which python doesn't startup if > > python-devel is not installed, which led to the majority of the "noarch" > > builds failing. [

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
2010/7/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > I think it's time to re-inform everyone since they seemed to be so > focused on systemd and have completely forgot about upstart. > > Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody! That's not exactly what I'm talking about... though that's

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 19:39, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > Who has been requesting this? What requirements did they give? The > > problem people seem to be having is the reasons you give in the above > > paragraph are reasons you yourself invented,

gcc bounds checking

2010-07-22 Thread Orion Poplawski
Looks, looks like gcc can do certain compile time bounds checking (probably for ages but I'm slow) and emits warnings like: In function 'strcpy', inlined from 'New_psimage_Ctrl' at psimage.c:357:9: /usr/include/bits/string3.h:107:3: warning: call to __builtin___strcpy_chk will always overfl

Re: gcc bounds checking

2010-07-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:12:46PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Looks, looks like gcc can do certain compile time bounds checking (probably > for ages but I'm slow) and emits warnings like: > > In function 'strcpy', > inlined from 'New_psimage_Ctrl' at psimage.c:357:9: > /usr/include/bits

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Red Hat Bugzilla 3.6 Upgrade Public Beta

2010-07-22 Thread James Laska
I am sending this on behalf of Dave Lawrence and the bugzilla team at Red Hat. Please forward this on to any appropriate lists that were missed. > Greetings, > > The Red Hat Bugzilla team is happy to announce the first public beta > release of the next version of Red Hat Bugzilla based on the >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 12:06, Dave Airlie (airl...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > Wow thats pretty special... both an option called realize and a > > argument, that won't get confusing no matter how long it lives, also > > realize doesn't seem to be conveying a useful meaning

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin > to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. Hmm... can these tools learn to prefer a certain format when they are piped int

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > however is very confusing when you'd write "disable --start" to disable > > something and then have it stop...) We then considered "--now", because > > it is not a verb. > > What is wrong with that? "enable --now" and "disable --now

Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)

2010-07-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 15:52 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote, at 07/22/2010 03:11 PM +9:00: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:00 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> - numpy is segfaulting during %check; am waiting on a gdb build to > >> finish (linked against 2.7) before I debug; this block

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 15:39, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand > wrote: >> Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin >> to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. > > > Hmm... can these

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: >> What do other commands use for "do it now" (instead of "later")? Perhaps >> the ubiquitous "-f/--force" will do? >> > I think --now is fine. There's even precedent: the famous 'shut

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > > abstract computer object. > > > > Dave, I am not a nat

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I have seen this done with a couple of GNU tools in the past. The > problems that usually stopped this was that too many strange consoles > seem to be a pipe at somepoint and so it spits out the wrong format at > the wrong time. It is

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > >> What do other commands use for "do it now" (instead of "later")? Perhaps > >> the ubiquitous "-f/--force" will do? > >>

  1   2   >