On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> code was slow or anything, but simply because it isn't really written in
> the way that things are expected to work these days. The LVM assembly at
> boot is
Compose started at Sun Nov 14 08:15:04 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
apcupsd-3.14.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.20()(64bit)
balsa-2.4.7-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> > Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
>
> biosdevname installed by defau
Hi packagers,
I've a re-review request for hatari:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=62
Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this?
Regards,
Andrea.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hello!
2010/11/14 Andrea Musuruane :
> Hi packagers,
> I've a re-review request for hatari:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=62
>
> Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this?
I'll take it.
Here is my review request:
erlang-rpm-macros - Macros for simplify
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> I'll take it.
> Here is my review request:
>
> erlang-rpm-macros - Macros for simplifying building of Erlang packages
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652544
Perfect. Thanks!
Andrea.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
> should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
>
> LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> code was slow o
Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become an
option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is rpm-based
distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros has moved to
GRUB2. however, rpm-based distros still stays at GRUB legacy. I can feel
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:12:18 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Thanks to http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/RepoQuery
>
> If you need to figure out which srpms have a buildrequirement on a
> particular pkgname run:
> repoquery --archlist=src --repoid=some_repo_with_srpms \
> -q --whatrequires pkgname
>
Aha!
On 14/11/10 12:18, Liang Suilong wrote:
> Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become
> an option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is
> rpm-based distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros
> has moved to GRUB2. however, rpm-base
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:22:42PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
> > exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
> > anymore. There is no
Hi,
/*Kevin Fenzi */ wrote on 11/14/2010 2:49:34 AM +0350:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:50:07 +0330
Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
/*Hedayat Vatankhah*/ wrote on 11/13/2010
5:28:49 PM +0350:
Hi all,
According to [1], my updated simspark package has been pushed to
stable; but it is not! The package is a
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:54:02 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
> wrote:
>> I despair of making *nix input people understand that LANGAGE ≠ INPUT
>> Please stop trying to derive one from the other, they are *distinct*
>> and one can (and often does) use
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:17:57 -0500, Andre Robatino wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
>
>> IMO, as has been said before, if you have a delta method that doesn't
>> produce the exact same bits at the end ... you've probably failed. It
>> might seem like a good idea, but even if you go to the extreme len
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:11:11PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 06:34 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
> > to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
> > "ethX" to clearly labeled "lomX" matching the
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:57:59AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> > > Fe
On Sun, 14.11.10 13:14, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
> Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
>
> > Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
> > should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
> >
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
Till Maas wrote:
>
> If there are no security updates, people can not apply them. So what is
> worse? If people stop applying updates, then it is at least their
> decision. If there are no updates, people can only choose not to use
Many people are going
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:26:48PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> *DE could consider switching the default to use EXT4 directly without
>> LVM. [1]
>> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
>
> The "Detailed De
On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Something else to add to the list: Does not support discard (aka TRIM)
> when using SSDs which hurts performance and lifetime of said drives.
I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM inside of a software RAID0
array on two Intel SSDs mounted with "discar
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Something else to add to the list: Does not support discard (aka TRIM)
>> when using SSDs which hurts performance and lifetime of said drives.
>
> I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM insi
On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
> never reaches the drive.
Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:15 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 10:45 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> >> Kevin Fenzi writes:
> >>
> >>> * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
> >>
>
>
> Does anyone happen to know how to mimic the equivale
Hi.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:44:06 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote
> Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
Discard aside, btrfs should include all (or most of) the features
that LVM and raid0 were giving you, anyway.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
On 11/13/2010 18:15, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
> yum install mock
> useradd mockbuild
> usermod -G mock mockbuild
Unless you want to ``su'' to a dedicated mockbuild account every time
you want to build you should add your usual account to the mock group
instead.
> mock rebuild -r epel-6-x8
On 11/14/2010 12:15 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> Anything installing an application on the system (whether it's part of
> Fedora or not) really should be installing a desktop file. If there's no
> desktop file, there's no way for the user to launch the application.
>
> In GNOME 3, no desktop file
> btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive is LVM, then that portion of
the drive is LVM forever until the LVM
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:38:50PM +, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> I'd say do try a rebuild of affected packages yourself, and notify the
> maintainers only in case there is a breakage and coordinate on what to do
> (otherwise they'd get an unpleasant FTBFS report).
>
That was helpful, th
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> [stated advantages snipped]
>
> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
> from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> > On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> > [stated advantages snipped]
> >
> > One design error is that you cannot "carve
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Oops, that's not completely true: pvresize currently is not smart enough
> to move allocated data out of the area to be freed, according to its man
> page. But you have other options, e.g., you can attach another di
On 11/14/2010 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
>> never reaches the drive.
>
> Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
You should also file a bug against the tool
On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
>> [stated advantages snipped]
>>
>> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary par
On 11/14/2010 07:03 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
>> btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
>
> Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
Apparently that's being worked on:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#Raid5.2F6
Regards,
Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:41:00 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM inside of a software RAID0
> array on two Intel SSDs mounted with "discard" enabled. Am I being lied
> to about discard being enabled?
You probably
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
> then I could not remove one of the partitions from the clutches
> of the
Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
has any idea what's going on here?
Thanks,
--
Michel
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fedora Koji Build System
Date: Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Package: pdfjam-2.07-1.fc13 Tag: dist-f13-updates-cand
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:03 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
>
>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
ago.
It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers whi
Once upon a time, Roberto Ragusa said:
> I don't remember if pvmove can use the same PV as src and dest;
> in that case you could avoid the need of an extra disk
> when your PV is just "fragmented".
You can; you have to specify manually the source and destination PEs,
and IIRC there's an extra op
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:38:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> [stated advantages snipped]
>
> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
> from an LVM. Once a portion of the
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:07:28PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> >> [stated advantages snipp
On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
>> then I could not rem
On 11/14/2010 04:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
>
> I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
> ago.
>
> It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers which are
> required to ensure we only ever write
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We definitely should stop setting up LVM by default on Fedora, because
> it allows us to disable these unnecessary enumeration delays that are
> broken by design anyway.
>
> If we don't have LVM on default installs, we also don'
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 21:23, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
> has any idea what's going on here?
No idea, but you might be on the way to an hexadecimal dollar!
Regards,
--
Pierre Carrier
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On 11/15/2010 12:00 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>>> and gave 6 of the pa
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:48:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> LVM is important and useful for managing storage. If, in the future, we have
> ZFS-like features in btrfs or whatever, okay, we can talk about getting rid
> of it. But a few-second gain in boot time is really, really, really not
> w
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:42:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a problem of partitions themselves being very inflexible.
> Have said that I don't really understand why you'd ever want to do
> this. "In a consulting environment" you're much more likely to
> encounter some other mech
49 matches
Mail list logo
