Hi,
> 1. space issues can be mitigated if the host is running etch because
> the vhashify vserver ability to "unify" guests to save disk space by
> performing link inversion immutability operations. The libbeecrypt6
> problems were not fixed before sarge released, so this is currently
> not possib
On 2006-03-30, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 03:28:42PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
>> How about providing this access only in a Xen guest?
>
> We have vserver enabled kernels for some arches in the archive.
In fact all arches that we support (except for
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 03:28:42PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> How about providing this access only in a Xen guest?
We have vserver enabled kernels for some arches in the archive.
Bastian
--
I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to
any question.
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PS: What do you want to port today?
Oops. Got the hint :-).
Ganesan
--
Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA
Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan| http://rganesan.blogspot.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was ranting about that on irc before, and was told that this is 1)
> > considered to be a security risk and 2) not worth the effort. The
> > additional concern I had was that an automatic solution would put less
>
> Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was ranting about that on irc before, and was told that this is 1)
> considered to be a security risk and 2) not worth the effort. The
> additional concern I had was that an automatic solution would put less
> load on DSA.
How about providing t
Re: Steve M. Robbins 2006-03-25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could simply "sudo apt-get install "
> yourself? Is it feasible to have at least some of the sid chroots
> allow this? Alternatively, how about "sudo pbuilder login ..."?
I was ranting about that on irc before,
>> Create a new custom chroot with the packages preinstalled on demand.
> Sounds like a use-case for combining pbuilder and cowdancer (or lvm
> snapshots). No time-consuming tarball extraction, disk usage is reduced
> and the original chroot is untouched.
Or just plain schroot on lvm snapshots. It
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 00:48 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Laszlo said:
> > I was in this situation some time already. But it isn't a solution to
> > get sudo apt-get install rights. Someone who may have a build-conflict
> > with your build-depends won't be happy if you install that package(s).
Laszlo said:
> On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 15:01 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice if you could simply "sudo apt-get install "
> > yourself? Is it feasible to have at least some of the sid chroots
> > allow this? Alternatively, how about "sudo pbuilder login ..."?
>
> I was
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 00:22 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Create a new custom chroot with the packages preinstalled on demand.
Sounds like a use-case for combining pbuilder and cowdancer (or lvm
snapshots). No time-consuming tarball extraction, disk usage is reduced
and the original chroot
Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 15:01 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>> [...] apt-get your sources, chroot into sid, and discover that
>> one of the build-dependencies is missing. There's no way to debug the
>> build problem: by the time you find the right a
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 15:01 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> [...] apt-get your sources, chroot into sid, and discover that
> one of the build-dependencies is missing. There's no way to debug the
> build problem: by the time you find the right address to email about
> adding the build-dependency,
13 matches
Mail list logo
