On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Shelby, James wrote:
> I'm trying to find out the changes in the kernel relating the 3.2 to 3.3
> changes in relation to the vfsmount structure change as we use an application
> that uses the mnt_parent element that no longer exists in the source. I
> looked a
2012/5/31 Adam Williamson
> > Third bug: after preupgrade finished to download fc17 packages, I
> > rebooted, but grub did not have a “upgrade system” entry. So the
> > computer is not upgradable with preupgrade.
>
> Need more information.
>
> Could it be? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 07:21 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Not yet. But HDD technology is changing rapidly. Just look at
> hybrid drives, SSD.
>
> No reason they could not add this capability.
Not really. Both of these have been in development for years and have
On 06/01/2012 10:37 AM, Caterpillar wrote:
Please apologize me, but if #820340 was not a showstopper, so which bug
should be a showstopper?
The bug
* does not cause data loss
* is easy to recover from
* seems to be fixable with an update
=> Not what I'd call a showstopper.
Michal
--
devel m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 08:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I wasn't responding to MJG, I was responding to Peter— who said I
> was wrong in the message where I was stating that a freedom is
> being lost, and has subsequently spoken more clearly on the
> position
On Thu, 31.05.12 15:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
Heya,
> We have added file trans by name rules to policy to fix a lot of
> files/directories being created with the correct label.
>
> We have problems on Distribution updates (F16-F17) though, where there is a
> files/directories
On 05/31/2012 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:08 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
But we can, and should, at least try to make our systems tolerant of failures.
Just because we can't test everything. Defensive programming.
Sure. As someone else said, though, that's an issu
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:55:35PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
> > That's why we didn't simply ask vendors to ship our key. That would be
> > /less/ equitable to other distributions than the solution we're looking at
> > right now.
>
> Has any thought been giv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 10:42 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:07 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
Yes, all these would currently support what I'm suggesting.
>>> Actually, if you're willing to flip a lot of switches, you
>>> could probably
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:18:23PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:08 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> >
> >>But we can, and should, at least try to make our systems tolerant of
> >>failures.
> >>Just because we can't test every
On 06/01/2012 01:39 PM, Michael scherer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:18:23PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 05/31/2012 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:08 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
But we can, and should, at least try to make our systems tolerant of failures.
J
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior
wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31 2012, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> So I'll patch sort to default to /var/tmp rather than /tmp.
>
> Please don't. As many pointed out, there are many disadvantages in
> doing this, and I really do not think we should b
the bug is 45 days old: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/812651
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/31/2012 09:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
- Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
platform Fedora will support it).
And this is exactly why we should just require our users to disable it!
I don't see any advantage at all from supporting this "f
On 06/01/2012 06:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 31.05.12 15:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
Heya,
We have added file trans by name rules to policy to fix a lot of
files/directories being created with the correct label.
We have problems on Distribution updates (F16-F17)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
> this change, and applications need to be updated to handle the change,
> or we will have a more broken Fedora 18. Advising people not to patch
> programs won't ma
On 06/01/2012 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 09:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>> - Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
>>> platform Fedora will support it).
>> And this is exactly why we should just require our users to disable it!
>>
On 05/31/2012 02:00 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Kaleb Keithley wrote:
About a week ago I did a scratch build of one of my packages that
includes and it built successfully.
Today I did another scratch build and it broke with:
...
Making all in src
CC fuse-helpers.lo
CC fuse-resolve.l
commit bd2d1f1502f9db5573f9205af2d6532ad2f3d000
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 1 14:38:15 2012 +0200
Skip some tests on bootstrap
perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec | 12 +++-
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec b/p
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/31/2012 10:42 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:07 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
> Yes, all these would currently support what I'm suggesting.
Actually, if
On 05/31/2012 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.05.12 19:04, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
If you have an explicit /tmp entry in fstab things should continue to
work the same as before. If you don't then you will now get a tmpfs on
/tmp by default.
What does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 01:51 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> Actually, with enough PCI USB port cards, USB hubs, and thumb
>> drives, you could use MD RAID and possibly LVM to make a
>> poor-person's SAN. Hot-swappable drives and all.
And with LIO in the kernel you c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 06:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 31.05.12 15:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Heya,
>
>> We have added file trans by name rules to policy to fix a lot of
>> files/directories being created with the correct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 08:10 AM, Bill Peck wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 06:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Thu, 31.05.12 15:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>> Heya,
>>
>>> We have added file trans by name rules to policy to fix a lot of
>>>
Unfortunately, I'm no longer in a position to maintain the projectM
packages (libprojectM, libprojectM-qt, projectM-jack,
projectM-libvisual, and projectM-pulseaudio), so I will need to orphan
these. If anyone would like to pick these up, feel free to come to me
with questions, or help.
Thanks,
=
On 06/01/2012 08:12 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size= option.
And how is a random user supposed to know this? So if
drago01 wrote:
> The advantages is that things just work (tm).
They "just work" as long as you don't try to actually exercise one of the
freedoms we stand for. Or even just install an out-of-tree kernel module
such as the ones from RPM Fusion. I don't think this is something we should
endorse,
On Fri, 01.06.12 09:13, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > (I wouldn't care too much about homedirs outside of /home. A not in the
> > release notes for such cases should suffice)
> >
> > Lennart
> >
>
> Well it is slow in the same sense as find /home would be slow, restorecon is
>
Brian Wheeler wrote:
> And how is a random user supposed to know this? So if things start
> acting up the answer is to add more swap and mess with fstab? WTF? So
> now any software which uses /tmp for gasp temporary space is now
> potentially broken depending on the size of the temporary data.
>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Well, not just FHS, but "traditional" usage within Red Hat and Fedora. For
> > as long as I can remember, /tmp has had a 10-day retention and /var/tmp
> > 30-day.
> > Does that matter?
> We still have 10d and 30d clean-up for t
On 06/01/2012 02:12 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
I certainly disagree ... this change is not reasonable.
this change, and applications need to be updated to hand
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp as
tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 06/01/2012 03:24 PM, Jameson wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm no longer in a position to maintain the projectM
packages (libprojectM, libprojectM-qt, projectM-jack,
projectM-libvisual, and projectM-pulseaudio), so I will need to orphan
these. If anyone would like to pick these up, feel free to come
On 06/01/2012 02:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 02:12 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
> I certainly disagree ... this change is not reasonable.
>
>>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:27:03AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> The wiki page lists the features as:
[...]
> * /tmp is automatically flushed at boot.
> It seems like adding an rm to the startup sequence would do this with less
> surprises.
Wait, hold on a sec. Again, not necessarily a problem bu
Hey guys am about to package this app:
http://supercat.nosredna.net/
anybody is working on it? just for case.
Regards, Adrian.-
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
> > default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
> > allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
> > appropriate size= option.
> And how is a random user sup
I've upgraded a few machines to Fedora 17.
One of them does not boot anymore. No device ever becomes plugged, thus
systemd eventually times out waiting for the disk device
(dev-sda1.device) and drops into the emergency shell.
The device is there and accessible;
udevadm trigger --type=devices --ac
Chris Murphy writes:
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>
>> Chris Murphy writes:
>>
>>> Normally top reports CPU line, sy at 0.4% when idle. If I format an
>>> external Firewire disk as btrfs and mount it, it remains at 0.4%. If I
>>> reformat as XFS and mount it, again top repor
Hi.
Firebird sql or the name it used to have before. Not sure if it was default
configuration or still behaves the same. But it used to do similar thing sort
does for some queries. Anyone? Current example but shipped with F18 from that
area?
- Original Message -
From: "Pádraig Brady"
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp as
> tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
> for everything else they do.
> That's crazy.
Thats not true (and I've used tmpfs for tmp for years, so I'm speaking
from e
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:21:36 +0200
Michael scherer wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:55:35PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
> > > That's why we didn't simply ask vendors to ship our key. That
> > > would be /less/ equitable to other distributions than the
> >
On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size= op
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 03:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > - Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
> > platform Fedora will support it).
>
> And this is exactly why we should just require our users to disable it!
I don't want to jump in the techni
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:26AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
> > as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
> > for everything else they do.
> > That's crazy.
>
On 06/01/2012 11:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
>> as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
>> for everything else they do.
>> That's crazy.
> Thats not true (and I'v
On 06/01/2012 11:18 AM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 03:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>> - Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
>>> platform Fedora will support it).
>> And this is exactly why we should just require our users to d
On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size=
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is allocated to
> the tmpfs for /tmp.
> Plus the purported benefit from this is causing less write cycles on SSD.
> (See Wiki page)
> That may have been a benefit a few years ago bu
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said:
> Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is allocated to
> the tmpfs for /tmp.
Not exactly. The default size limit for a tmpfs mount is half of RAM;
the RAM is not allocated exclusively to the tmpfs. The files in a tmpfs
mount live in th
On 06/01/2012 08:30 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
The better solution would be for users for want SecureBoot to have to
set it in the BIOS. It should be disabled by default.
Windows is the OS with all the attack vectors open. Users of every
other OS should not be hostage to this SecureBoot by default
Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
> only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS
> settings in order to install Fedora won't be seriously considered as
> viable.
Sorry, but it's the ONLY viable solution. Any "solution"
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:35:45PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (That said, we have even bigger problems coming up with Restricted
> ("Secure") Boot!)
To be fair, this problem is not one of our own doing.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
vi
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:27:01AM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is
> allocated to the tmpfs for /tmp.
No-no-no! Default tmpfs size is half of physical RAM, that's
all. That doesn't mean that is stays in RAM forever.
$ df -h /tmp
Filesyst
On 06/01/2012 11:35 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Because that disk activity only happens when the kernel decides that
it wants the memory for something else it doesn't happen at all in a
great many cases especially for short lived files.
...
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of S
On 06/01/2012 11:35 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> This "feature" may have some benefits but I think they are infinitesimally
>> small.
> The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
> preservation, but tmpfs also offers co
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said:
> The better solution would be for users for want SecureBoot to have to set it
> in the BIOS. It should be disabled by default.
>
> Windows is the OS with all the attack vectors open. Users of every other OS
> should not be hostage to this SecureBoot
> by d
Gerry Reno wrote:
> The better solution would be for users for want SecureBoot to have to set
> it in the BIOS. It should be disabled by default.
>
> Windows is the OS with all the attack vectors open. Users of every other
> OS should not be hostage to this SecureBoot by default.
While I could
Once upon a time, Brian Wheeler said:
> Um, aren't both of those benefits the same as one would get when using
> ext4's delayed allocation?
Delayed allocation still has to flush metadata changes to storage
regularly as well as possibly read metadata from storage to find
available inodes, while t
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> The advantages is that things just work (tm).
>
> They "just work" as long as you don't try to actually exercise one of the
> freedoms we stand for.
Which one?
> Or even just install an out-of-tree kernel module
> such as th
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:15:06AM -0300, Adrian Alves wrote:
> Hey guys am about to package this app:
> http://supercat.nosredna.net/
>
> anybody is working on it? just for case.
No, at least they haven't filed any review bugs in Bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
> good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
> "Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not compelling.
One good reason is to separate /tmp from /.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
>> I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
>> only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS
>> settings in order to install Fedora won't be seriously considered as
>> viable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings.
This is a reminder email about the end of life process for Fedora 15.
Fedora 15 will reach end of life on 2012-06-26, and no further updates
will be pushed out after that time. Additionally, with the recent
release of Fedora 17, no new p
Am 01.06.2012 11:25, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
> On 06/01/2012 10:37 AM, Caterpillar wrote:
>> Please apologize me, but if #820340 was not a showstopper, so which bug
>> should be a showstopper?
>
> The bug
> * does not cause data loss
> * is easy to recover from
for you and for me
not for the
Am 01.06.2012 16:23, schrieb Alexey I. Froloff:
>> Sorry guys, this feature sucks.
> I like this feature, and there should be easy, well documented
> way to turn it off. I personally don't see a reason why it
> should be off by default
so you can add 1 line to /etc/fstab since many years
this
Am 31.05.2012 12:45, schrieb Pádraig Brady:
> Currently `sort` defaults to $TMPDIR or if not set '/tmp'.
>
> Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
> but shouldn't be an issue, but should also not be in RAM
> and so is more appropriate.
>
> So I'll patch sort to default t
Am 01.06.2012 17:05, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
>> as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
>> for everything else they do.
>> That's crazy.
>
> Thats not true (and
Am 01.06.2012 17:35, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
> preservation, but tmpfs also offers considerable performance
> improvements for workloads that create/remove files in /tmp at high
> speed— which is the reason that many people hav
Am 01.06.2012 17:44, schrieb Gerry Reno:
> Well, I don't have any workloads that are doing high-speed create/remove of
> file in /tmp.
> And I don't think most people have any of those types of workloads either.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense that people with those types of workloads could enable
Am 01.06.2012 17:52, schrieb Alexey I. Froloff:
> One good reason is to separate /tmp from /. When choosing
> between failed sort and failed passwd (or anything else, that
> modifies files in /), both because of "No space left on device"
> error I prefer failed sort and working passwd.
and exat
On 06/01/2012 11:52 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>> Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
>> good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
>> "Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not com
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> My understanding is that some of the relevant legal minds believe that
> Microsoft's "you can disable it" concession forecloses the possibility
> of a successful legal attack on this— the law may care about the
> anti-competativeness of this stuff, but not so much as to car
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> DO NOT SPIT USELESS DATA IN MY RAM PER DEFAULT BECAUSE RAM
> IS EXPENSIVE STORAGE AND USED FOR BETTER THINGS
Actually, the data written to /tmp _always_ goes through the page cache
and is held in RAM (at least for a bit). Since many things in /tmp are
shor
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 17:54 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> >> I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
> >> only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS
> >> settings in order
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
> on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
> with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
If you are mounting a filesystem on /tmp, it'll be in /etc/fstab and
still wor
Peter Jones wrote:
> Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
> majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
> machines.
Nonsense. They will be able to install it very easily, they just need to set
a single boolean in their BIOS setup from Enable
On Fri, 01.06.12 16:25, Thomas Sailer (sai...@sailer.dynip.lugs.ch) wrote:
> I've upgraded a few machines to Fedora 17.
>
> One of them does not boot anymore. No device ever becomes plugged, thus
> systemd eventually times out waiting for the disk device
> (dev-sda1.device) and drops into the eme
Peter Jones wrote:
> Nothing is being swept under the rug here. You have the same access to the
> mailing list as I do. We're looking for ideas, and we're putting forth a
> plan that we're willing to implement. If you can come up with a better
> idea, that would be wonderful.
The better idea is th
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> Well, I don't have any workloads that are doing high-speed create/remove of
> file in /tmp.
>
> And I don't think most people have any of those types of workloads either.
I do, but ext4 handles my workload marvelously. For high-sp
On 06/01/2012 11:30 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> The better solution would be for users for want SecureBoot to have to set it
> in the BIOS. It should be disabled by default.
I do not disagree with you. Microsoft does. They have the influence over
the hardware OEMs. We do not. They are forcing the O
On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
>> majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
>> machines.
> Nonsense. They will be able to install it very easily, they just need to set
Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 11:47 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Is this all set in stone?
>>
>> No. We've spent some time thinking about all of this and are happy that
>> we
>> can implement it in the Fedora 18 timescale, but there's always the
>> possibility that we've missed something or
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> > thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
> > on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
> > with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
>
> If you are m
I'm going to chime in once to add my thoughts... It's already way too
late for me to influence the decision (first I heard of it is "it's
decided") so my only recourse is to add it to the long list of things
I have to "undo" after installing Fedora.
> Sorry guys, this feature sucks.
+1 on this
Adam Jackson wrote:
> False. Quoting from Matthew's original post:
>
> "A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys
> and replace them with your own. After that it's just a matter of
> re-signing the Fedora bootloader (like I said, we'll be providing tools
> and documenta
On Fri, 01.06.12 16:19, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:26AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > > So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run
> > > /tmp as tmpfs without c
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:13:32 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But why are you making this decision in the first place?
What "decision" ?
They explained the issues and problem and came up with what they would
recommend we do. No "decision" has been made.
> This:
> 1. is a technical decision which
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> well designed machines do NOT swap and have not alligend
> swap at all - in the case of virtualization you MUST NOT
> enforce swapping if you really like perofrmance
I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you— perhaps more all-caps would help? :-)
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> By the way, I am assuming that you know that one can't modify Firefox and
> redistribute it as Firefox without certification.
I've been pointing out this issue in several threads. That's exactly why
Fedora should finally follow Debian's lead and just rename Firefox.
On 06/01/2012 12:10 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Peter Jones wrote:
>>> Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
>>> majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
>>> machines.
>> Nonsense. They will be able
On 06/01/2012 12:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> By the way, I am assuming that you know that one can't modify Firefox and
>> redistribute it as Firefox without certification.
> I've been pointing out this issue in several threads. That's exactly why
> Fedora should finally fol
Peter Jones wrote:
> I can see the loss of freedom, and I find it unfortunate, but despite
> what you've said above, you *are* distorting it. There's nothing you
> won't be able to do that you could do before. Doing it the same way
> will be harder than it was.
Then why are we not just requiring t
2012/6/2 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> well designed machines do NOT swap and have not alligend
>> swap at all - in the case of virtualization you MUST NOT
>> enforce swapping if you really like perofrmance
>
> I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you— pe
On 06/01/2012 12:10 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Peter Jones wrote:
>>> Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
>>> majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
>>> machines.
>> Nonsense. They will be able
>> By the way, I am assuming that you know that one can't modify Firefox and
>> redistribute it as Firefox without certification.
>
> I've been pointing out this issue in several threads. That's exactly why
> Fedora should finally follow Debian's lead and just rename Firefox.
Cool. Why not?
But
Gerry Reno wrote:
> How are you going to dual-boot:
> Windows-8 and Windows-7
> Windows-8 and Windows-XP
> Windows-8 and Windows 2008 Server
>
> Windows-8 and Fedora 16
> Windows-8 and Fedora 17
> Windows-8 and Fedora 18
>
>
You can't without changing the setti
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:16:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > False. Quoting from Matthew's original post:
> >
> > "A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys
> > and replace them with your own. After that it's just a matter of
> > re-signing th
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 13:18 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:08 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> >
> >> But we can, and should, at least try to make our systems tolerant of
> >> failures.
> >> Just because we can't test everythi
On 06/01/2012 12:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:16:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> False. Quoting from Matthew's original post:
>>>
>>> "A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys
>>> and replace them with your own. A
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
