Re: Stuff the installer does which isn't done on upgrade....

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > For dir_index you have to take the FS offline, tune2fs and fsck it or > you totaly corrupt it. Actually, that's not true. It's perfectly safe to run tune2fs on a mounted volume to enable the dir_index feature. All directorie

Re: Stuff the installer does which isn't done on upgrade....

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > I don't know about the installer, but all filesystems I created with > mke2fs recently also have resize_inode, which isn't even in the tune2fs > manpage. It's not in the tune2fs man page because e2fsprogs doesn't currently support addi

Re: Stuff the installer does which isn't done on upgrade....

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:53:14AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Did they fix that? When I first looked into dir_index it was said that > it would corrupt the directories since it would search the old linear > dirs via hash and insert new entries by hash into linear dirs. Who said that? I

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:56:21AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > This sort of vague anecdotal "evidence" has been repeated over and over. > It may be true, but as far as I know, nobody has yet to come forth with > reporting specific problems in Debian, only "x worked out of the box in > ubuntu but n

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:16:53AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > OK, I have a brand-spanking new IBM/Lenovo T60p laptop with nice, fast > > SATA Drives, Intel Dual Core CPU's; 1600x1200 display --- sexy > > machine. Debian stable doesn't run on it. Ubuntu 6.06 LTS installed > > Out of curiousit

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:02:04PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Am Samstag 26 August 2006 15:15 schrieb Theodore Tso: > > No support for: (The * are critical) > > > > * SATA Hard Drives (*) > > * Intel AD1981 HD Audio (*) > > This stuff did not even ex

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:26:12PM +, Sam Morris wrote: > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:02:04 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > Am Samstag 26 August 2006 15:15 schrieb Theodore Tso: > >> No support for: (The * are critical) > >> > >>* SATA Hard Drives

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show" > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so. > > The BTS behaviour of http://bugs.debian.org/ has recently > changed. It used to

Re: default ext3 options

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:35:30PM +, Sam Morris wrote: > > As far as I know, neither the resize_inode nore the dir_index ext3 > > option can be securely added after the file system is created. > > According to > , > it

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:36:44AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > I'm not talking about the local admin. Right now Debian maintainer > scripts are not allowed to use the "enable" command because that is a > bashism, and more importantly there is _no reason_ to use the "enable" > command because simpl

Re: Debian Installer etch RC1 released

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 04:52:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > There are good chances that Etch will contain 2.6.18, but due to some > open bugs the Release Candidate 1 of the installer has still 2.6.17. Because of the sysctl deprecation issue, it might be a good idea to either consider 2.6.1

Re: Bug#397939: Proposal: Packages must have a working clean target

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > What you are saying, in essence, is that we have not been > treating autoconf transitions with the care we devote to other > transitions; and as a result people have started shipping > intermediate files. > > Wh

Re: Bug#366780: ITP: summain -- compute and verify file checksums

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:41:54AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Apart from supporting more file formats, summain differs from the > traditional md5sum and sha1sum utilities by providing progress > reporting, and via convenience features such as automatic recursion > into directories, and look

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Re: Please revoke your signatures from Martin Kraff's keys

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:08:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > He didn't try to dupe people and this claim is getting rather old. > Duping people would have actually been putting false information on the > ID and generating a fake key and trying to get someone to sign off on > the fake key based

Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > What Martin Krafft showed you was, > > How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft? So if you have no idea whether or not someone was Martin Krafft, how can you ask everyone to revoke all signatures for Martin

Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:48:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The person who I thought was Marting has apparently revealed > that the identity documents that were preseted to the key signing > party participants were ones that did not come out of a trusted > process. Typically, th

Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > This is one of the most common accusations leveled against d-l: that the > membership of d-l is skewed and not representative of Debian as a whole. > If that's true there's not much d-l can do about it, of course, and the > whole pro

Re: How to cope with patches sanely (Was: State of the project - input needed)

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:39:32PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > I'm less and less sure that a git-based format is a brilliant idea. I > like git more than a lot, but it's a poor idea to base source packages > on them. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able one day to upload a > signed git

Re: How to cope with patches sanely

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:04:16PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > While the time might not be yet, DVCS systems are getting to the point > where they could make our lives all much simpler. Having all of > Debian in git, where anyone can clone and hack would be (IMHO) a > worthy goal to aim for. C

Re: How to cope with patches sanely

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 10:26:52PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Bah that's the worst reason I ever seen to not use a DVCS in Debian. > Please look at the debian packages with patches, and please tell me how > many come with a comment about what the patch do. Please start with the > glibc if yo

Re: the new style "mass tirage" of bugs

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 02:15:10PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > Note that also doesn't indicate how many were actually fixed. We have > nothing that look like bugzilla's NOTABUG or INVALID. It would be nice if we had this, actually, and it wouldn't be hard, right? Just define a convention for a ne

Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:33PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 16:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> Yet, rebasing is still routinely performed in the Linux kernel > >> development. > > > > What I find inter

Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:40:55PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > That's why you should avoid using the branch as basis to others until > > it's clean and also avoid to make it public (without a reason) too. > > This makes it more difficult to ask for review while the branch is in > progress, whic

Re: How to handle Debian patches

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:25:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > In fact, despite being one of the big quilt advocates in the last round of > this discussion, I am at this point pretty much sold on using Git due to > its merges and branch support and have started to switch my packages over. > Howeve

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:50:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Peter Samuelson writes: > > [Emilio Pozuelo Monfort] > > >> We haven't agreed on whether there should be one ddeb per source or > >> per binary package, so I would leave this still opened. > > > Maybe I'm losing track of things here

Re: update on binary upload restrictions

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:44:39AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, James Troup wrote: > > >Summary > > Credit where credit is due. This is exactly the kind of informative > explanation I have been looking for and I hope we'll see a lot of more of

Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Hello, > > > > the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but > > sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people > > watch

Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced

On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > Right. But would it actually be officially safe to interrupt with ^C ? > That would give the user an opportunity to decide how in a hurry they > are, and quickly get out of a difficult situation. > > If the answer is yes, ^C is offici

Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:36:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900 > > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the > > > e2fscks skipped ? > > > > Too

Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:14:21PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > > > ext3. > > > > ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > But it is much faster. In t

Re: On management

On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:28:50PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > Quoting Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > As of now, I see it as a failure of the project. But this is also > > nothing that can't be fixed. What do you people think could be done to > > bring the skills we are lacking

Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:30:39AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 27 février 2007 à 09:24 +0100, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > > And how do you help a maintainer that does not admit that he needs help? > > I can't believe people are thinking such crap. > > Please show me where a current mai

Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs

On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:57:01PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > You forgot a single damn point: in debian, like in many projects, the > one that "do" things is often the guy that "decide" things because he's > the one there. If you put people that work 5 times more as me because > they have th

Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:36:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070406 12:33]: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:10:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Like I said, in practical terms, if a bug like this in a major server > > > package goes unnoticed

Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:41:50PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > *) Do we dump everything into /usr/lib/debug, i.e., > >/usr/lib/debug/sbin/e2fsck? Or should we put it in > >/usr/lib/debug/, i.e., /usr/lib/debug/e2fsprogs/sbin/e2fsck? > >Most packages I've seen seem to be doing the fo

Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:39:00PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > There are 3 kind of people who need -dbg packages. > - Users, when they are asked to provide proper backtraces in bug reports > - Developers, when they need to debug stuff > - Maintainers > > Obviously, the latter will be able to get t

Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:39:05PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Sorry, but this is either someone's uncontributed gcc patches, or > (more likely) hearsay. The difference between -g (same as -g2) and > -g3 is whether .debug_macinfo is generated - debug info for C/C++ > preprocessor macros. It

Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:42:47PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I think they do this, using "debugedit". We (CodeSourcery) do it for > our libraries too. It's incredibly useful - but very spoiling; every > time I'm without the automatic debug sources and source paths I get > grumpy about it.

Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:16:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >For various reasons we don't use it at work - instead we added some GCC >command line options to relocate the debug info at compile time. In >the end, it comes down to the same result. Were these private hacks to GCC? I tried lo

Re: Shouldn't tar 1.20-1 be in testing?

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:43:51PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 15:34:40 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > tar 1.20-1 entered unstable on 2008-04-17, so several months before the > > freeze. > > The essential toolchain was frozen before the rest of the archive. Yes, b

Re: dhclient-script, hooks, and changing the environment

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:10:56PM -0300, martin f krafft wrote: > Anything else? Do you know of packages that rely on this > functionality? Do you have scripts of your own which modify the > environment? Would you please be so kind as to explain to me what > they do, and help me figure out whether

Re: dhclient-script, hooks, and changing the environment

On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 03:29:43PM -0300, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.08.08.1453 -0300]: > > In the past I've used dhclient-enter-hooks.d to work around buggy > > hotel networks which advertise a gateway for the default rout

DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:47:01PM +, David Given wrote: > In which case things have changed within the past couple of years --- > after all, the whole purpose of the Atheros HAL was to inforce those FCC > limits. Do you have any references? Like, to an FCC statement of policy > change? If so,

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 03:29:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC > > could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out > > ho

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 05:05:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > But now we have this claim that the FCC's well-understood rule about > hardware does not apply to software: that software modifications *are* > traceable back to the manufacturer, even though hardware modifications > are not.

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:21:26PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Another choice open to Debian is to make it easier for users to opt > > into downloading firmware --- perhaps by making very easy thro

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:24:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org > > machines, or very popular Dell machines with Broadcom ethernet > > firmware. Great! Cut them off!! Let's see how quickly we can get > > users moving to non

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against > it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't > care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is > even o

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and > I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch > of free st

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > To me, the social contract is a very good compromise. It states first an > idealist acheivement, but moderates it by some pragmatism concerning the > users. "unproductive" discussions fall into the same category, when they do >

Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:50:48AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > > "Raphael" == Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Raphael> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Raphael> dar-static > > Raphael> Theodore Y. Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Raphael> e2fsck-static > > Both of the

Re: Bug#459403: libuuid1: missing depends on non-essential package passwd

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:37:03AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > the libuuid1 postinst contains: > groupadd -f -K GID_MIN=1 -K GID_MAX=999 libuuid > if ! grep -q libuuid /etc/passwd; then >useradd -d /var/lib/libuuid -K UID_MIN=1 -K UID_MAX=499 -g libuuid libuuid > fi > mkdir -p /var/lib/li

Re: Bug#459403: libuuid1: missing depends on non-essential package passwd

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:34:07AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:23:23AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > >So, I am doing so now. Any objections if I > > add a dependency on passwd for libuuid1? The aternative would be to > >

Re: Bug#459403: libuuid1: missing depends on non-essential package passwd

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:41:01AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I don't think "but we don't want to make adduser Priority: required" is > > a good enough reason to add global static IDs; and passwd doesn't need > > to be made Essential just because an Essential package depends on it > > (Essent

Re: 2.4.x Kernel, ECN And Problem Websites

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:16:30PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > It may be a minor catch-22, but ECN is currently so broken, that only power > users should be using it, as the rest will just continue flooding the > netfilter list with "Netfilter breaks all my websites!". [OK, ECN isn't > broken,

Re: Forthcoming changes in kernel-package

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:14:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > This is a heads up for a major change in kernel-package, the > tool to create user packaged kernel images and headers; which will > make the make-kpkg script far less error prone, and far more > deterministic. >

Re: Is the FHS dead ?

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 06:08:17PM +0200, Teodor wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 14:20 +, Matthew Johnson a écrit : > >> the FHS should certainly continue to exist and be coordinated between > >> distros though. I agree that if i

Re: Is the FHS dead ?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:24:24PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Reiviving the FHS is great! Something that is bothering me a bit, > though, is that historically it seemed to try to cater to Unix in > general, not only Linux, even if most of the participants were coming > from the Linux world. So h

Re: Is the FHS dead ?

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:20:31AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Interesting. And yes, illustrative of the historically (and, should I > add, ridiculous? No, I'd better not ;-) ) rivality between Linux and > the *BSDs, big egos included. Well, the last time we tried to make reasonable accomodati

Re: Forthcoming changes in kernel-package

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:56:30PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > BTW, I have a set of patches you might want to consider. I'll file > > them in BTS if you're currently making make-kpkg. > > Please. I have been thinking about the request you made for > debugging symbols being package

Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:12:22PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've > got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful > to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever > install (to pick

Re: net-tools future

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 02:30:18PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: > > About the wrapper scripts: > * ipconfig, route: the most difficult ones, both can be replaced by > calls to "ip", maybe except for some obscure options. Suggestion about the wrapper scripts. It would be nice if they had a mode