On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:12 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
> I think, no system can use 2 disk which have the same UUID at the
> same time (besides maybe one of the Windows BIOS fake controller).
> Duplicate UUID is a contradictio in adiecto and should be fixed.
Just a guess, but it probably could, if yo
On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> My small web server appears to be working and even has https, however
> I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
>
> [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0 server certificate does NOT include an ID
> which matches the server name
On 5/1/23 01:18, Felix Miata wrote:
It's been over 42 months since I last booted a Fedora installer (to a 5.3
kernel).
Upgrading Fedora has worked in excess of 100 times here (15 multiboot PCs with
it). On faster machines, allocating as much as an hour for the process is a
gross
excess. On les
> Am 02.05.2023 um 00:21 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan :
>
> My small web server appears to be working and even has https, however
> I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
>
> [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0 server certificate does NOT include an ID
> which matches the server name
>
Dear All,
I have always upgraded Fedora from the previously installed version.
Consequently, I still have ext4. To have btrfs, is it needed to do a
Fedora clean install?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
There was an article back in the days of btrfs introduction that described the
process: https://fedoramagazine.org/convert-your-filesystem-to-btrfs/
I've used it myself without any issues back then, I would assume it's still
safe to do so now.
I ran it like this for a few more releases without
I've forgot to add, that for compression, this, again, works only for newly
created/accesses files only, so after adding compression to fstab (and reboot),
you might want to run a defragmentation `sudo btrfs filesystem defragment -r
`.
There was a recent article about that too:
https://fedoram
On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 21:17 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 6:22 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> >
> > My small web server appears to be working and even has https,
> > however
> > I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
> >
> > [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0
> Am 02.05.2023 um 09:05 schrieb Tim via users :
>
> On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:12 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>> I think, no system can use 2 disk which have the same UUID at the
>> same time (besides maybe one of the Windows BIOS fake controller).
>> Duplicate UUID is a contradictio in adiecto and s
On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:41 +0100, Barry wrote:
>
>
> > On 1 May 2023, at 23:22, Patrick O'Callaghan
> > wrote:
> >
> > My small web server appears to be working and even has https,
> > however
> > I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
> >
> > [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0 ser
On Tue, 2023-05-02 at 10:39 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
> > Am 02.05.2023 um 00:21 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan
> > :
> >
> > My small web server appears to be working and even has https,
> > however
> > I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
> >
> > [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0
On Tue, 2023-05-02 at 16:51 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > My small web server appears to be working and even has https,
> > however
> > I've noticed this in /var/log/httpd/ssl_error_log:
> >
> > [...] AH01909: bree.org.uk:443:0 serv
> Am 02.05.2023 um 12:23 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan :
>
> # httpd -S
> VirtualHost configuration:
> *:80 bree.org.uk (/etc/httpd/conf.d/bree.conf:1)
> *:443 is a NameVirtualHost
>default server bree.org.uk (/etc/httpd/conf.d/bree-le-ssl.conf:2)
>
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 6:22 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:41 +0100, Barry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 1 May 2023, at 23:22, Patrick O'Callaghan
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > My small web server appears to be working and even has https,
> > > however
> > > I've noticed this in
> Am 02.05.2023 um 15:25 schrieb Jeffrey Walton :
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 6:22 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 23:41 +0100, Barry wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 1 May 2023, at 23:22, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
My small web server appears to be working
Once upon a time, Jeffrey Walton said:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 6:22 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > # openssl x509 -in cert.pem -noout -text
> > Certificate:
> > Data:
> > Version: 3 (0x2)
> > Serial Number:
> > 04:ff:0e:50:c1:ee:21:26:7d:96:d1:97:5e:45:5a:d3:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 10:13:04 +0200
Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> I will never understand why people are so inclined to restart from scratch
> with a new install every time.
I treat it as an opportunity to get rid of stuff I no longer use.
I also keep the previous release around on a different partition
On Tue, 2023-05-02 at 10:13 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> I will never understand why people are so inclined to restart from scratch
> with a new install every time.
Bad experience doing it in the past, and the huge number of times I've
read about the problems people have needed help to resolve o
Tim:
>> Briefly looking at RAID information, there are things that should be
>> unique, and there are some things that can be duplicated (not so sure
>> that they should be, though). Drive IDs would need to be unique for
>> anything that uses IDs to differentiate one drive from other. There's
>>
> Am 02.05.2023 um 16:45 schrieb Tim via users :
>
> Tim:
>>> Briefly looking at RAID information, there are things that should be
>>> unique, and there are some things that can be duplicated (not so sure
>>> that they should be, though). Drive IDs would need to be unique for
>>> anything that
Hardware or software raid typically makes and exact copy of what they
are mirroring.
Hardware raid typically mirrors the entire disk (all UUIDS on the disk
will be duplicated on the 2nd device, but in real hw raid the raid
controller hides the underlying devices), software raid can do the
entire d
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:44 AM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Jeffrey Walton said:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 6:22 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
> > wrote:
> > > # openssl x509 -in cert.pem -noout -text
> > > Certificate:
> > > Data:
> > > Version: 3 (0x2)
> > > Serial Num
Greetings,
Working directly with the paps developer on github
(https://github.com/dov/paps/discussions/63)
We've come across a bug.
Current F37 version is:
paps-0.7.1-5.fc37
Current F38 version is:
paps-0.7.9-1.fc38
Latest stable version is
paps-0.8.x
This needs to be reported Fedora maint
Max Pyziur wrote:
> Working directly with the paps developer on github
> (https://github.com/dov/paps/discussions/63)
>
> We've come across a bug.
>
> Current F37 version is:
> paps-0.7.1-5.fc37
>
> Current F38 version is:
> paps-0.7.9-1.fc38
>
> Latest stable version is
> paps-0.8.x
>
> This
On Tue, May 2, 2023, at 8:14 AM, Roger Heflin wrote:
> Hardware or software raid typically makes and exact copy of what they
> are mirroring.
I was just preparing a reply to this. I had been confused since I do run Linux
MD raid 1 and I was pretty sure I had matching UUID. Here are two examples t
On Tue, 2 May 2023 11:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Max Pyziur wrote:
> Working directly with the paps developer on github
> (https://github.com/dov/paps/discussions/63)
>
> We've come across a bug.
>
> Current F37 version is:
> paps-0.7.1-5.fc37
>
> Current F38 version is:
> paps-0.7.9-1.fc38
>
> Latest
stan via users wrote:
> But, why is this a bug? Stable versions are often at
> lower release versions for rpms than newer versions.
The bug is that 0.8.0 includes a fix which 0.7.9 lacks.
That context was only in the github link which Max posted.
Until I read that, I had the same reaction. :)
--
On Tue, 2 May 2023, stan via users wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 11:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Max Pyziur wrote:
Working directly with the paps developer on github
(https://github.com/dov/paps/discussions/63)
We've come across a bug.
Current F37 version is:
paps-0.7.1-5.fc37
Current F38 version is:
paps
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:46 AM Doug Herr wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023, at 8:14 AM, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > Hardware or software raid typically makes and exact copy of what they
> > are mirroring.
>
> I was just preparing a reply to this. I had been confused since I do run
> Linux MD raid 1 and
On Tue, 2 May 2023 11:52:47 -0400
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> stan via users wrote:
> > But, why is this a bug? Stable versions are often at
> > lower release versions for rpms than newer versions.
>
> The bug is that 0.8.0 includes a fix which 0.7.9 lacks.
> That context was only in the github l
On 5/2/23 07:40, Tim via users wrote:
On Tue, 2023-05-02 at 10:13 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
I will never understand why people are so inclined to restart from scratch
with a new install every time.
Bad experience doing it in the past, and the huge number of times I've
read about the problem
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 4:13 AM Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> [...]
> My personal system was installed with FC3 in 2005 and then continuously
> upgraded up to currently FC36.
> (it has even got metamorphosis from i686 to x86_64, something that was
> considered
> impossible to do)
That's impressive.
Je
On 4/30/23 14:25, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
Here is an extract from the system log (a fuller extract is attached):
Mar 18 07:57:56 OaklandWeather.localdomain systemd[1]: Started
noip-duc.service - No-IP Dynamic Update Client.
Mar 18 07:57:58 OaklandWeather.localdomain systemd[1]: noip-duc.service:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:46:44 -0500
david.woody...@rdwoodyard.com wrote:
> I did respond to your last email, this is additional...
>
> I don't normally top post, but in this situation I thought it
> appropriate:
>
>
>
> I found the following:
>
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-l
34 matches
Mail list logo
