On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:36 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:28 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945:
> > regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> > > On Mon, 2016-01-18
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:28 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945:
> regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> > On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 02:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Ugly. Could we live with that u
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions -
FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 02:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Ugly. Could we live with that until #1 and #2 get put in place?
>
> #1 is trivial (see below).
Acked-
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 02:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Ugly. Could we live with that until #1 and #2 get put in place?
#1 is trivial (see below).
#2 is, as noted in my original mail, something which while it logically belongs
between #1 and #3 could be deferred.
> Otherwise it looks very much
>>> On 18.01.16 at 10:41, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 00:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:42, wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> > > On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu,
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 00:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:42, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wr
On 18/01/2016 07:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.01.16 at 18:42, wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> * I don't have a
>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:42, wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > > > * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above b
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
> > > > can probably
On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
>>>can probably provide one. I'm hoping this is more a matter of
>>>thinking carefull
On 1/15/16 11:06 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
>>can probably provide one. I'm hoping this is more a matter of
>>thinking carefully than of extensive build system pro
>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:06, wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
>>can probably provide one. I'm hoping this is more a matter of
>>thinking carefully than of extensive build system programmin
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions -
FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
...
> The only downside is a spurious /boot/xenpolicy-$version installed when the
> corresponding Xen binary doesn't support XSM, however given the assumption
>
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
> can probably provide one. I'm hoping this is more a matter of
> thinking carefully than of extensive build system programming!
I think we should:
1) Move /usr/li
>>> On 14.01.16 at 17:27, wrote:
> I have to confess I'm quite confused now. Maybe there are many
> underlying disagreements here but mostly I seem befogged. However,
> here are some principles I currently believe in for how this should
> all work:
>
> * It should be possible to enable, or dis
On 1/14/16 11:18 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945:
> regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
>> On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Is any of this of any use ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 17:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945:
> regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> > On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Is any of this of any use ?
> > >
Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions
- FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Is any of this of any use ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian.
> > (no less confused after writing this
On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have to confess I'm quite confused now. Maybe there are many
> underlying disagreements here but mostly I seem befogged. However,
> here are some principles I currently believe in for how this should
> all work:
>
> * It should be possible to enable,
I have to confess I'm quite confused now. Maybe there are many
underlying disagreements here but mostly I seem befogged. However,
here are some principles I currently believe in for how this should
all work:
* It should be possible to enable, or disable, all of the following
things by pullin
20 matches
Mail list logo
