On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> I seem to have touched a sore spot on Mr. Murphy, and apologize if I
> have unintentionally irritated him.
What annoys me is that people want to have things two ways. Basically
they want what they want because they want it, which simply isn
I seem to have touched a sore spot on Mr. Murphy, and apologize if I
have unintentionally irritated him. If he is the designer of the
offline update mechanism, and I correctly perceive the implications of
his explanation, then I do scold him for failure to mitigate the
damage that might occur to a
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> I am unhappy with the suggestion that the semantics of kernel parameters
> may depend on some notion about how "temporary" they are. If a kernel
> parameter is specified, it is present; if not specified, it is absent.
3 isn't even a kernel
I am unhappy with the suggestion that the semantics of kernel parameters
may depend on some notion about how "temporary" they are. If a kernel
parameter is specified, it is present; if not specified, it is absent.
It is proper to design parameter syntax and default values to favor
common usage.
Felix Miata composed on 2016-08-30 18:44 (UTC-0400):
I'm still waiting to see evidence that the
upgrade process is actually proceeding, at least 35 minutes after having
"Reached target System Update" show up on the screen.
Success. E7500 Core2Duo 2.93GHz CPU. About 54 minutes long boot accordi
Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 16:13 (UTC-0600):
Anything that overrides default.target is supposed to be temporary. To
Not everything gets used as it's "supposed to be" used. With a dozen or more
installations spread across dozens of machines, a digit in a stanza
constitutes a keyword
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 15:31 (UTC-0600):
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>
>>> What I was looking for is the process that triggers "offline updates
>>> mode".
>>> If it involves the bootloader, I know whatever it may be simply doesn't
>>
Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 15:31 (UTC-0600):
Felix Miata wrote:
What I was looking for is the process that triggers "offline updates mode".
If it involves the bootloader, I know whatever it may be simply doesn't
exist. This is a multiboot installation, so no Fedora bootloader is invo
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Kamil Paral composed on 2016-08-30 06:24 (UTC-0400):
>
>>> Following the instructions on
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
>>> eventually I reached
>>> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
>>> which apparent
Kamil Paral composed on 2016-08-30 06:24 (UTC-0400):
>> Following the instructions on
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
>> eventually I reached
>> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
>> which apparently completed without error, ending by directing to run
>> dnf
> Following the instructions on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
> eventually I reached
> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
> which apparently completed without error, ending by directing to run
> dnf system-upgrade reboot.
> So, I did, and it booted normally.
Following the instructions on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
eventually I reached
dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
which apparently completed without error, ending by directing to run
dnf system-upgrade reboot.
So, I did, and it booted normally. Nothing is r
12 matches
Mail list logo
