On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:21:05 -0700, walt wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> > I don't like systemd,
>
> Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any
> explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd.
It was never germane to the con
On 10/11/2013 09:21 PM, walt wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I don't like systemd,
>
> Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any
> explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd.
>
> The three happiest months of my life were
On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I don't like systemd,
Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any
explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd.
The three happiest months of my life were spent as a student in London
in the summer of 1974
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:36:02 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction,
> > now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer
> > devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an
> > dge case.
>
> Yeah an
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is
> > > unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically
> > > for this. It is
The 10/10/13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> if something like sshd crashes, you either have a hardware problem or
> sshd is buggy. Either way, better not be pampered over with a silent
> service restart.
So, restarting a service should not be silent (I think it isn't) and
might need better alerts
Am 10.10.2013 16:46, schrieb William Hubbs:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:24:39PM -0700, walt wrote:
>> On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> to provide service supervision, which is the main
>>> feature systemd offers
>> By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:24:39PM -0700, walt wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > to provide service supervision, which is the main
> > feature systemd offers
>
> By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes, for example?
Right. This is one of the mor
On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> to provide service supervision, which is the main
> feature systemd offers
By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes, for example?
Or something else completely?
On Sun, Sep 29 2013, tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
> On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can
>> tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in
>> Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also te
On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can
tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in
Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not
aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:11:48PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 08.10.2013 02:03, schrieb walt:
> > On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >
> >> As much as I hate systemd
> > My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd.
> > Would you *very*
Am 08.10.2013 02:03, schrieb walt:
> On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> As much as I hate systemd
> My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd.
> Would you *very* briefly refresh my memory, please?
>
>
>
simple: one tool to do one job. text out
On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> As much as I hate systemd
My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd.
Would you *very* briefly refresh my memory, please?
Gregory Shearman gmail.com> writes:
> Both servers are running Gentoo Stable... therefore current kernels (for
> their architecture). Both have external HDD attached via USB.
Hey Greg,
If you just "reply" to the thread, we can keep one continuous
thread going in lieu of a new posting each tim
In linux.gentoo.user, James wrote:
> Gregory Shearman gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> b) The important reason I need an initramfs is that I have my root
>> filesystems on LVM partitions (except for my ARM servers).
>
> Hello Gregory,
>
> Please tell me, as much as you are confortable with,
> about yo
Gregory Shearman gmail.com> writes:
> b) The important reason I need an initramfs is that I have my root
> filesystems on LVM partitions (except for my ARM servers).
Hello Gregory,
Please tell me, as much as you are confortable with,
about your ARM servers
Running Gentoo? Running Emb
Am 03.10.2013 11:00, schrieb Yuri K. Shatroff:
> I apologize but I always thought that it's Linux that derives from
> AT&T SysV (1983), while FreeBSD derives from ... BSD (1978). How come
> then Linux uses SysV init and BSD does not? ;)
no, no and no.
On 02.10.2013 16:28, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[ ... ]
You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
a long-standing bug.
Incidentally, do you know why the tree is in /usr? Because FreeBSD ports
puts it there. Why did they do that? Because FreeBSD is not Linux; it is
derived
On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:48:59 +0200, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
> >On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still
> >> in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the
> >> portage directory lives, but the ha
Alan McKinnon wrote:
>On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>>
>> Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
>> defaul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/30/2013 06:22 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:01:27 +0200, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
>
>>> mount /usr -o remount,ro mkdir /newusr rsync -a /usr/ /new/usr/ Comment out
>>> /usr line in
>>> /etc/fstab mv /usr /oldusr mv /n
On 2013-10-02 2:24 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Ok, thanks much guys... guess I'll go with Alans layout as it makes the
most sense to me:
/var/portage
/var/distfiles
/var/packages
Actually, I think I like:
/var/portage/tree
/var/portage/distfiles
/var/portage/packages
better... :)
On 2013-10-02 11:31 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains
thousands of small files, but remains largely the same size. On the other
hand $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR contain files that are not controlled by
portage and grow continually without
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:47:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doesn't move packages and distfiles
> > there... sounded like he had a good reason...
> He's English, and old(-ish)
>
> My money says he forgot.
Misremembered actually.
In fact, I replied when I saw
On 02/10/2013 14:53, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along.
>
> I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;)
>
>> You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
>> a long-sta
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:23:07 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > /var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or
> > distfiles).
>
> Why not these?
Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains
thousands of small files, but remains largely the same si
On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along.
I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;)
You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
a long-standing bug.
I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doe
On 02/10/2013 14:12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
installation.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> While I'm not sure why it matters to you,
>
> Just curious.
>
>> it is because I ha
On 02/10/2013 14:04, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>
>> Why?
>
> While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is beca
On 2013-10-01 7:41 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
/var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or
distfiles).
Why not these?
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
> >> installation.
>
> > Why?
>
> While I'm not sure why it matters to you,
Just curious.
> it is because I have a policy
> that I never change the defaults for an
On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
installation.
Why?
While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is because I have a policy
that I never change the defaults
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:51:01 -0700, Greg Turner wrote:
> I do think I vaguely recall that discussion about /var too though...
> frankly, /var seems more sensible ... but maybe that's a can of worms
> I should not be opening in this thread :)
I think it was one of those discussion where every could
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>>
>> Why? If ever there was a distro for people tha
On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>> installation.
>
> Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
> defaults, Gentoo is it.
>
>> Someon
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
> installation.
Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
defaults, Gentoo is it.
> Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone?
On 2013-10-01 10:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is
there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it?
Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:11:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> So I split them up and rigged things so each category of thing is in
> it's own distinct directory tree. Like I said earlier, they are just
> paths and you can put them anywhere you like. You too can put yours
> anywhere it makes sense to
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:52:47 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs
> >> for things like this...
>
> > It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is.
> > That's all, nothing
On 01/10/2013 15:52, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for
>>> things like this...
>
>> It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's
>> all, nothing more.
>
> Ok, than
On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is
> there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it?
>
> Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly
> tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask
On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for
things like this...
It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's
all, nothing more.
Ok, thanks... but (call me anal, because I am) I still think th
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:35:16 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >> Alan wrote:
> >>> Charles wrote:
> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so,
> then I don't think I want t
On 01/10/2013 14:35, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
Charles wrote:
> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
> don't think I want to move it - I generally
On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Charles wrote:
But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless
there is a very good re
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:05:29 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > > really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the
> > > rest? Wow...
> >
> > You were ahead of me for sure :-)
> >
> > I clearly remember one day long long ago you ranted and raved about
> > how a huge chunk of /usr was wri
On Monday 30 Sep 2013 20:14:44 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >>> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
> >>>
> >>> >> don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults
> >>> >> unless there is a very good
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
>>> >> don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless
>>> >> there is a very good reason to do so.
>> > It's /var/portage for new installs. If you wa
Am 30.09.2013 11:00, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On 30/09/2013 00:53, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one
>>> exception:
>>>
>>> /usr/src
>>>
>>> That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kern
»Q« wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:39:35 -0500
> Dale wrote:
>
>> I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking
>> about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-)
> Make sure you notify the Kubuntu mailing list of your contingency plans
> in case Kubuntu's init thingy gives y
On 30/09/2013 00:53, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one
>> exception:
>>
>> /usr/src
>>
>> That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources
>> often. Ideally, you'd make that a suita
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:39:35 -0500
Dale wrote:
> I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking
> about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-)
Make sure you notify the Kubuntu mailing list of your contingency plans
in case Kubuntu's init thingy gives you trouble. ;)
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:25:05 +0100
Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote
> >
> > > Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam
> > > around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing
On 09/29/2013 01:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still
>>> needs to be solved on your machines:
>>>
>>> /usr needs to be availa
Am 30.09.2013 00:53, schrieb Tanstaafl:
> On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one
>> exception:
>>
>> /usr/src
>>
>> That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources
>> often. Ideally, you'd make that a sui
On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception:
/usr/src
That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources
often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately.
Yeah, I always ke
On 29/09/2013 22:51, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one),
> but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to
> the list...
>
> On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a membe
Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one),
but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to
the list...
On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can
tell you that we are no
On 29/09/2013 20:55, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still
>>> needs to be solved on your machines:
>>>
>>> /usr needs to be available
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still
> > needs to be solved on your machines:
> >
> > /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the
> > e
On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still
needs to be solved on your machines:
/usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the
earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To
guarantee th
On 2013-09-29 18:36, Dale wrote:
> That could be the problem then couldn't it?
Indeed. :-)
Best regards
Peter K
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 29.09.2013 17:24, schrieb pk:
>> On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>
>>> look at history, think and retry.
>> That's just what I did. Read and retry.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Peter K
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> I did, your mail did not make any more sense at all
Am 29.09.2013 17:24, schrieb pk:
> On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> look at history, think and retry.
> That's just what I did. Read and retry.
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>
> .
>
I did, your mail did not make any more sense at all.
On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> look at history, think and retry.
That's just what I did. Read and retry.
Best regards
Peter K
Am 29.09.2013 01:31, schrieb pk:
> On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
>> everything into / .
> Install Windows and be done with it, I say.
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>
> .
>
look at history, think and retry.
Am 29.09.2013 02:08, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On 29/09/2013 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last
two choices, then I am all ears.
>> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
>> everyth
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 02:06:34 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> for /usr being in an LVM or encrypted partition, you need LVM and/or
> decryption running first.
Why would you want /usr encrypted but not /? There is nothing private
in /usr, but /etc/ contains password files.
I have used a separate usr i
On 2013-09-29 08:06, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it?
By starting from scratch and putting it in the kernel (which will stop
people from being too "creative" as well, since Linus will not allow
things to break so easily). The BSDs, MacOS
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:36:43AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> The actual problem is better stated something like this:
>
> In the early stages of user-land setup (around the time when udev is
> getting it's act together), arbitrary code can run and that code can be
> in any arbitrary place, but
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 07:01:56PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>
> Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before.
> ROFLMBO
>
> Dale
We already have it, just we don't have to CAPITALIZE c:
mingdao@workstation ~ $ ls -l .wine/drive_c/
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 6 mingdao mingdao 107 May
On 2013-09-29 02:01, Dale wrote:
> Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before.
> ROFLMBO
I would hesitate to laugh because that's where Linux is heading... And
Alan and other's are right in that it's not udevs problem per se; it's
all the half-desktop services[1]/applic
On 29/09/2013 02:01, Dale wrote:
> pk wrote:
>> On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>
>>> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
>>> everything into / .
>> Install Windows and be done with it, I say.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Peter K
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Next,
On 29/09/2013 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last
>> > two choices, then I am all ears.
>> >
>> >
> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
> everything into / .
>
>
I did consider that, but gave
pk wrote:
> On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
>> everything into / .
> Install Windows and be done with it, I say.
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>
>
Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have o
On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move
> everything into / .
Install Windows and be done with it, I say.
Best regards
Peter K
Am 29.09.2013 00:36, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On 28/09/2013 22:58, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> As far as I read, the problem is with bluetooth keyboards? and some
>> other devices and locales, which are minor for this decision of
>> removing supportability. Especially for servers and for most of
>> work
On 28/09/2013 22:58, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> As far as I read, the problem is with bluetooth keyboards? and some
> other devices and locales, which are minor for this decision of
> removing supportability. Especially for servers and for most of
> workstations. Most sane configuration can be supported
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 28/09/13 01:33, Dale wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Hill wrote:
>>>
>>> mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read
>>> 2013-09-27-initramfs-required
>>>Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
>>>Author
On 28/09/13 01:33, Dale wrote:
Bruce Hill wrote:
mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read
2013-09-27-initramfs-required
Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
AuthorWilliam Hubbs
Posted2013-09-27
Revision
81 matches
Mail list logo
