On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:45:00PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 02/12/2005-02:47:55(+): Stephen Bennett types
> > On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:35:23 +0100
> > Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > revealed that there are in fact hundrets of premade device nodes in
> > > th
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:17:38PM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:43:32PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > That being said, my boxes have an empty /dev...
>
> you so sure about that ? if your /dev is completely empty, you wont
> get any init output becau
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Joshua Baergen wrote:
> As many of you no doubt have noticed, spyderous and I finished bumping
> the modular packages to the newly released 7.0, which includes many
> changes and bug fixes since 6.8.2. Over the next few weeks we'll be
> finalizing licen
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:52:43PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> I wonder ... can we have one precise mission statement without
> alienating a big part of our user base?
To copy another opensource group's mission statement,
"Total World Domination"
Hey, it's been working for them so f
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:56:03PM +0530, Shyam Mani wrote:
> [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/modular-x-howto.xml
You mean:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml
right?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
> wrote:
> > Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
> > a loosely bound group of developers all doing their own thing in a
> > c
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell.
Some of us already work for companies that produce other Linux
distributions or support the companies that do. :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mai
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:31:30AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
> > > decline.
> >
> > Ok, then what should Gentoo
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:24:52PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:56:03PM +0530, Shyam Mani wrote:
> > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/modular-x-howto.xml
>
> You mean:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml
> right?
FYI
Well, it's not a Gentoo specific plea, but a Linux kernel plea. I've
created a new kernel tree, git-sources, that tracks the upstream
development kernel tree every day (not the raw git tree, but the nightly
snapshots of it.)
If you want to help out with kernel development testing, please run
thes
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:27:46AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> | Well, it's not a Gentoo specific plea, but a Linux kernel plea. I've
> | created a new kernel tree, git-sources, that tracks the upstream
> | development kernel tree every day (not the
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:24:57AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> | On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:27:46AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> |>Where should people file bugs on this?
> |
> |
> | To quote the einfo text that is shown when you install this kernel:
&
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:41:41PM +0100, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > And if someone wants to forward this over to -user, feel free.
>
> Do you want to have this kernel documented in our Kernel guide [1]?
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-kernel.xml#doc
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:31:12AM +0100, Christian Bricart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday I've noticed, that some mappings in /dev/discs are missing on
> my machine.
> Actually I have an additional ATA controller with some discs attached.
> So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the ma
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:50:07PM +0100, Christian Bricart wrote:
> Richard Fish wrote:
> >On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the mappings to
> >>/dev/discs/discX with X > 7 are missing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:20:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
> > > If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
> > > patched..
> > > gnome-settings-daemon on some ev
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:57:43PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda wrote: [Sat Mar 25 2006, 06:18:52PM EST]
> > Well, I find it easier to understand than many other DVCSs out there...
> > In fact I don't think it is difficult to use in any way. Maybe pre-1.1
> > versions had some s
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:52:38PM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 07 April 2006 19:39, Roy Marples wrote:
> >>> ... some just want a generic Gentoo business card and the
> >>> ones we had were great, but when you get into real conversations, the guy
> >>> wants
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> >The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1]. The three finalists
> >were bazaar[2], mercurial[3] and git[4], and the winner was eventually
> >mercurial. This is also the recommended choice from the
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I want to have
> > an ability to turn off the coldplug thing *completely* on udev level.
>
> So maybe I should be clear in con
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:54:53AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > > Well, it should not be load
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> Also, git-sources *should* use this eclass once it is in the tree since
> people using it will save _lots_ of bandwidth and disk space.
Yes, I'll convert it over once you feel it is ready, just let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:18:05PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:08:08AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > > Also, git-sources *should* use this eclass once it is in the tree since
>
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:05:00AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The udev/nss_ldap thing has been brewing for a while, and we're still trying
> to
> get upstream udev to fix the issue.
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99564#c44
>
> In that comment I list the proper solution that upstre
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:07:07PM +0200, Mivz wrote:
> Why is it that when I use the new kernel SATA drivers and load is as
> /dev/sda it is slower as with the old IDE drivers?
You didn't tell us which sata drivers you were using, nor what kernel
version.
Either way, try asking this on the linux
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Added:moreutils-0.29.ebuild ChangeLog Manifest
> > Log:
> > initial ebuild for the moreutils package
> > src_unpack() {
> > unpack ${A}
> >
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:26PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh) wrote:
> > # Copyright 1999-2008 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/n
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:17:14PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> >>> src_install() {
> >>> doman bti.1
> >>> dobin bti
> >>> dodoc bti.example README RELEASE-NOTES
> >>> }
> >> You really should have
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:29:13PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:58:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:26PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman (gr
Ok, I know I'm doing something stupid here, but I can't figure it out.
I have a new ebuild (linux-firmware) that is really just a tarball that
needs to be placed somewhere in the filesystem.
So, I do the following:
src_install() {
dodir /lib/firmware
cp -R
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:47:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:39:38 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
> > cp -R "${S}/*" "${D}lib/firmware/" || die "Install
> > failed!" }
>
> That should be "${S}"/* .
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:40:46AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I chose to stick with Gentoo as my distro of choice because I didn't like
> the way Red Hat did things years ago. As well as a few other nitpicks I
> have. It bugs me to no end that, despite running a fairly vanilla setup on
> a sou
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:44AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120314 Greg KH wrote:
> > if you have /usr on a different filesystem today, with no initrd,
> > your machine could be broken and you don't even know it.
>
> Whatever do you mean ? -- if it were truly broken
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:08:27PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:04:31 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Not always, no, it isn't obvious that something didn't start up
> > correctly, or that it didn't fully load properly. Some programs later
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:59:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:22:09 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
> > The people doing the work today do understand them, by virtue of
> > doing the work involved, which gives them the say in how it is done.
> > That
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:57:52PM +, David Leverton wrote:
> Would anyone else like to continue with their own favourite
> separate-/usr reason?
Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. See the /usr page at
fedora f
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> Is this that page?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> That refers to the systemd website on freedesktop.org.
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
Yes.
> With that said, I ha
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:14:54PM +, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 21:04, Greg KH wrote:
> > Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
> > and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. See the /usr page at
> > fedora for all of
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
> >> both locations?
> >
> > Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
> > them don't work over the long run.
> >
> > We aren't Debi
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:21:44PM +, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH wrote:
> > Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and
> > will not be supported :)
>
> See, it's this "we're doing it this way b
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:58:23PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/14/12 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
> > Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
> > going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
> > pe
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:04:52AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Devtmpfs quite literally handles 98% of my particular usage scenario. Does
> that apply to everyone? Nope. Just an interesting observation.
devtmpfs does not handle device permissions.
As for a "smaller" udev, feel free to try, p
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:30:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You know - I had a similar issue, but with a pair of PL2303 USB RS232
> interfaces. That makes me wonder if there is a possible way to
> enhance udev to better handle situations where devices have no unique
> ID and thus tend to be di
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:04:36PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Why not use the links in /dev/serial/ which are there for this specific
> > reason?
> >
>
> # ls -l /dev/serial
> ls: cannot access /dev/s
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >
> > There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
>
>
> Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:01:19PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> >> On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There's always
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:54:26PM +0100, Christoph Mende wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently lacking time for some packages, so I'm looking for
> someone to take over a few, most notably:
>
> - net-misc/curl
> - net-dns/c-ares (preferably both together)
I can take curl, but I don't know what c-ares
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:44:16AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 03/24/2012 11:27 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:54:26PM +0100, Christoph Mende wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I'm currently lacking time for some packages, so I'm lo
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 08:32:41AM +0200, justin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after this change
>
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/1a51410abe7d0ee4b1d112780f46df87d3621043
>
> iotop cannot be used as user anymore.
> Any suggestions how to proceed?
>
> The solution I see are
>
> 1.
> Leave it to
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> New udev and separate /usr partition
>
> Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be
> investigated.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:29:54AM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) defi
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
> >> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and the
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
> > called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev.
>
> That's my idea =)
and then, look, you have reimplemented udev
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02:01AM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev)
> >
> > we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want
> > busybox itself linking aga
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> >> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs:
> >> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new
> >> udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old
> >> udev, mask new, or whate
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >> My 2 cents: The Chromium proje
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
> > going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
> > base libaries of the
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:02:05 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
> > And what are you going to do when dbus moves into the kernel itself
> > (hint, it will be there soon)?
>
> Why stop at dbus? Why isn't libxml
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:40:41AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close integration
> with the underlying udev implementation[PS].
Nope, can't make that assurance at
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I foresee a new udev fork then.
Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
created it.
Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
encourage people to do them if they wish to,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough,
> >> thanks.
> > Th
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:09:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2012 03:53:53 Walter Dnes wrote:
> > My question... is this API stable or deprecated? I.e. can I count on
> > it being around for a while? I figure this question is a developer type
> > question rather than ordin
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:53:53AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> After some Google-searching, I think I've figured out how to implement
> automounting under mdev. I'd like to put in as much sanity-checking
> into the script as possible. Right now I have 1 USB stick plugged in as
> /dev/sdb. Th h
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:56:15AM +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > We learned that this is not a good idea at all, and should be left to
> > userspace helper applications
> > that listen for dbus messages.
>
> Could
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:55:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 06:23:36PM -0700, Greg KH wrote
>
> > So you need to implement stuff such that you are not dependant on the
> > bus type. If you see a new disk, act on it, it's that simple.
> >
&
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:05:57AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:56:15AM +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote
>
> > I don't know at what state udev was 3 or 4 years ago, but mdev can:
> >
> > 1. Populate /dev (now unnecessary due to devtmpfs).
> > 2. Handle ownership, permissions
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
sign our bootloader?" is one aspect
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:28:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
>
> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>
> Minor deta
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> >
> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> > Gentoo
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
> >
> > Minor details l
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:57:06AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
> they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
> manager, and the user can easily whitelist both individual loaders and
> the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:49:01AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Gre
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:28PM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> One of these days I'd like to pick your brain about some hardened UEFI
> interactions I've seen (with pipacs watching).
Sure, be glad to talk about this anytime.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:05AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120614 Greg KH wrote:
> > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo
> > or not worry about Gentoo right now and just focus on t
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:03:24PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> >>
> >> Minor details l
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:41:47PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
> > not require it at
> > >> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
> > >>> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
> > >>>
> > >>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not
> > >>>> pretty.
> >
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 06:37:41PM -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Just picking a random response to reply to. I'm not speaking
> officially, however, I'm pretty sure we at Genesi aren't going to pay
> Microsoft in order to boot our own boards.
If you don't want your boards to be Windows 8 cer
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:22:24PM +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I think that anybody that really cares about security should be
> > running in custom mode anyway, and should just re-sign anything they
> > want to run. Custom mode lets you
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:06:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:55:35 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:51:04PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > 2. What happens if, say, your bootloader is compromised?
> >
> &
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
> UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
> implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware,
> Secure Boot issues disappear.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
> >> UEFI Secure Boot will h
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:35:41PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 05:56:28PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't
> >> going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you
> >> ever want to. You are not going to be
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 07:46:47PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Recently, I have again bumped into the question whether one
> should compile the kernel as root. One of the things that puzzles
> me is why almost every HowTo, blog post and book recommends
> building as non-root -- yet b
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>
> Well, if you completely agreed wit
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Handling separate /usr support
> ==
> WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr
> systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such
> as e.g. [1], be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> > really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> > more origi
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under a
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > > that be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.
I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit
floating around like that could cause trouble.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under a
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> > not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> > makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals,
> > there's no way th
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
> announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
> RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
> with Kay Sievers and Lennart
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> >>> not have a
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>
> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> > accompli
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
> but I think that is not as impor
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> I foresee a new udev fork then.
> >
> > Please feel free to do so, the code has b
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
