On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 13:47, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Hi guys,
> please signoff 2.6.36 series for both arches
> and give feedback if
> real issues arise.
>
> Upstream
> changes:
> http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges
>
> Features included:
> - Tomoyo support:
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task
On 11/07/10 18:23, Matthew Monaco wrote:
Anyone have issues changing from Xorg to one of the tty's? I've got a
radeon r600.
No problems on my Intel 945 (aside from the long-standing "sometimes
randomly, on boot after mode-setting but before entering X for the first
time, it doesn't display an
* Florian Pritz [2010-11-07 18:39] :
> It doesn't seem like dcron is maintained very well [1], so I think we
> should consider switching. FS#18681 [2] is quite a critical bug in a
> crond when everyone expects jobs to run only once.
>
> I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well
The day was 07/11/10 23:58 when Heiko Baums had this to say..:
* The crontab from dcron and fcron are not compatible. So fcron cannot
be a simple drop-in repalcement
What are the differences? I didn't need to change anything when I
switched from fcron to the new dcron. If I had to change a
Am Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:50:22 +0100
schrieb Pierre Schmitz :
> Let's not rush things:
>
> * Make sure that dcron is really a dead project and there is no chance
> for an update. Dropping a core package just because of one bug (which
> might get fixed) does not sound sane.
See the both URLs Floria
On 11/01/2010 02:47 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Hi guys,
please signoff 2.6.36 series for both arches
and give feedback if
real issues arise.
Upstream
changes:
http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges
Features included:
- Tomoyo support:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21533
- Apparmor support:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:09:35 +0100, Thorsten Töpper
wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:09:12 +0100
> Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500
>> schrieb Kaiting Chen :
>>
>> > I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch
>> > to cronie, which is the descendent of
On 11/07/10 13:57, Kaiting Chen wrote:
I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well for most
people, has a lot of features while having a small dependency tree.
I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users.
looking at various recent x86_64 from [core], group 'base', in kilo
Thorsten Töpper wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:09:12 +0100
> Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500
>> schrieb Kaiting Chen :
>>
>> > I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch
>> > to cronie, which is the descendent of vixie-cron. It's developed by
>> >
I guess, the discussion is about including fcron into /core and on installation
media. From this perspective, having two daemons might be a deal breaker.
Leonid.
On (11/07/10 21:09), Heiko Baums wrote:
--> Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500
--> schrieb Kaiting Chen :
-->
--> > I think fcron is ki
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:09:12 +0100
Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500
> schrieb Kaiting Chen :
>
> > I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch
> > to cronie, which is the descendent of vixie-cron. It's developed by
> > RedHat, well maintained, supports
Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500
schrieb Kaiting Chen :
> I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch to
> cronie, which is the descendent of vixie-cron. It's developed by
> RedHat, well maintained, supports PAM and SELinux and can be built
> with anacron features.
I disa
>
> I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well for most
> people, has a lot of features while having a small dependency tree.
>
I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch to
cronie, which is the descendent of vixie-cron. It's developed by RedHat,
well mai
Am Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:39:13 +0100
schrieb Florian Pritz :
> It doesn't seem like dcron is maintained very well [1], so I think we
> should consider switching. FS#18681 [2] is quite a critical bug in a
> crond when everyone expects jobs to run only once.
>
> I'd like to go with fcron because it s
On 07.11.2010 18:39, Florian Pritz wrote:
> It doesn't seem like dcron is maintained very well [1], so I think we
> should consider switching. FS#18681 [2] is quite a critical bug in a
> crond when everyone expects jobs to run only once.
>
> I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very w
It doesn't seem like dcron is maintained very well [1], so I think we
should consider switching. FS#18681 [2] is quite a critical bug in a
crond when everyone expects jobs to run only once.
I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well for most
people, has a lot of features while ha
16 matches
Mail list logo
