xt time you boot viola! there's all your OSes ready to be started.
It should be a front-end for grub2-mkconfig, which in Gentoo uses os-prober:
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/os-prober
grub2-mkconfig does exactly the same, just from the command line.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado
OME 2, and it definitely get less in the way to actually do
work.
Just my opinion. Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> On Thu, May 26 2011, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>>> Since I don't teach again until sept, this seems like a good time to try
>>> gnome 3. Be
u could try systemd.
I use it in all of my boxes, and the boot time saved is in some cases
in the order of one minute.
(And to everybody else: I'm not interested in a flame war; I'm just
telling my [admittedly empirical] experience).
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenie
s the easiest way to solve a problem
> like this?
Have you tried "make oldconfig"?
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
plug the ethernet cable or select the wireless network, set the
WEP/WPA key, and that's it.
Maybe you have a really wild or weird use case, but then I'm really
curious: Why do you want yo set up a different softlevel just to
change between wired and wireless networks?
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
om the GNOME
overlay. It all works basically flawless.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Am 16.08.2011 19:06, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>
>> In all my computers (i.e., not the two desktops at uni, since they are
>> not "mine") I use systemd (which thankfully has entered the portage
>&g
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>> Am 16.08.2011 19:06, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>
>>> In all my computers (i.e., not the two desktops at uni, since they are
>>> not "
HO it's far superior than OpenRC, which anyways is a fine init
system.
But of course, if you're happy with OpenRC and nothing interest you
from systemd, there is no reason to change. For me, the boot-times and
the fact that most of the services I use have a .service unit file
writte
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Stroller
>>> Reading that blog entry I found discouraging the idea that dbus might be
>>> required on my server
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
>>> wrote:
>>>> On
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tue 23 August 2011 15:06:25 Canek Peláez Valdés did opine thusly:
>> > Now if it had similarities to say hal, I would instantly
>> > understand. But dbus is good and useful in all the ways that
>> > hal isn&#
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tue 23 August 2011 15:50:24 Canek Peláez Valdés did opine thusly:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>> > On Tue 23 August 2011 15:06:25 Canek Peláez Valdés did opine
> thusly:
>> &
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> Because I generally update my desktop system while running X, and on
>>> at least two occas
27;s not worth the
effort of installing from the overlay and all the unmasking and
compiling required.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Albert W. Hopkins
wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, August 29 at 12:02 (-0400), Canek Peláez Valdés said:
> [...]
>> Actually, it's pretty stable. It doesn't have much customization
>> available
>
> You can get a fair amou
I am of no help at all, but I really wonder, why your numbers differ
> so
> significantly from mine.
Kinda similar here: GNOME 3.0, Emacs with several LaTeX articles,
Evince, Evolution, Rhythmbox, Chromium with like 20 tabs (my 4 zombie
processes are Chromium tabs), and the heaviest of all
o detect and fix any problem that I may
encounter when updating my machine. I don't need a robust QA from my
distribution, but I'm the exception. And this is the kind of QA
problems that make people to replace Gentoo for Ubuntu, or Fedora, or
whatever.
I whish I knew how to solve this so everybody could use Gentoo, but I
don't. I don't think I will ever use any other distro (although I've
toyed with the idea of trying exherbo), but I cannot in good
conscience recommend it to "normal" users, unless I'm willing to be
their tech support forever.
I love Gentoo, been using it since 2004, but I'm the first one to
admit it's not for everyone.
And that saddens me a little.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
etworkManager or connman,
and use the GUI thingy to do the work for you? I haven't manually
configured a wireless network in years, and I have been the last three
months traveling with my laptop literally all over the world,
connecting to all kinds of access points.
NetworkMnager just wo
he logs on the services? Or is there a way to slow
> down booting?
You can press 'I' during boot to go into interactive mode, and then
OpenRC will ask you before starting any service. You can also call
rc-status to see the status of each service.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Va
ems a rather sane default to always require the most used
printing system in an office suite.
> Sounds like it's time to switch back to OOo.
It would not surprise me that they will switch to mandatory CUPS in
the future. It just happened before in LO because they develop new
features fas
UPS, it worked perfectly almost straight out of
> the box. Probably less effort and more reliable than printing on any other
> o/s I've used.
That's also my experience.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
eOffice, I think the "bloat" of
CUPS is negligible. Specially if, as I said, it usually just works.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Grant Edwards
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Graham Murray wonders:
>>>
won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice?
Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The
LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and
only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
sense *at all* to support more printing
systems.
And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
besides the most used one.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Canek.
Hi Alan.
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> >> > However, I use lprng, not cups. It
ling LibreOffice, which has 3098 files and
uses 260 Mb of hd space, it makes no sense at all that you complain
against CUPS size.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
bulk of files in net-print/cups is man
pages (51), html pages for the web interface (110) and templates
(140). Right there is thr 60% of the whole package.
Really, CUPS is a very small daemon for all the things it does. I
don't see any gain by splitting the package.
Regards
--
Cane
anyway, anyone will be able to keep /usr in
another partition if so they desire it. They will only need to use an
initramfs.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Dan Johansson wrote:
>>>> > This is definitely not a choice that the gentoo disto made; it is coming
>>>> > f
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 7
t; Huh? What does genkernel have to do with NVidia drivers?
>
> genkernel included nouvou, which conflicted with the NVidia
> proprietary drivers at the time.
I'm pretty sure (but could be wrong, I haven't used genkernel in ages)
that there is a way to blacklist some modules and
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:52:22 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> After reading that, and other similar threads, I still don't
>> understand the benefits of a separated /usr.
>
> Putting it on a logical volume is
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:52:22 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
>>>> After rea
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:04:17 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > Putting it on a logical volume is one advantage, allowing /usr to be
>> > resized should the need arise.
>>
>> Why not allow / to be resi
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:54:57 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:52:22 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> > After reading that, and other
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> Then don't update. Wanna keep up with upstream? Then accept that sometimes
>> you will need to change your setup, and change how you do stuff. Regards.
>
> This is so like something
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:30:16 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > Because you can't boot from an LV, so you'd than need a separate /boot
>> > and an initramfs. Without LVM, you are unlikely to be able to
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2011, 23:33:35 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> > The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the
>> > idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, th
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:23:45 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > I wound up being able to recover by doing a full reinstall of all
>> > packages on the live system after mounting /usr into a
>> > f
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then don't update. Wanna keep up with ups
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 11:13:58 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> wrote:
>> > Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2011, 23:33:35 schrieb Canek Peláez Vald
on to not have initramfs will be
removed from the kernel in the future, unless you select
CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:33:35 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM, David W Noon
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The more I think ab
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 12:34:50 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 11:13:58 schrieb Canek Peláez
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 12:45:47 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 16:58:22 schrieb Neil Bothwick
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-08 05:23, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> Yeah, first time I installed Linux, it required 512 Mb (if I installed
>> X), and 16 Mb of memmory. Change happens. I welcome it happily,
>> because that's how we progr
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-08 16:51, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> But the freedom is still there. The freedom to either keep your system
>> as it is (don't upgrade)
> ^
> You do realise that this is quite valid fo
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We already *have* the situation of not requiring initramfs fo
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM, pk wrote:
>> On 2011-09-08 16:51, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> But the freedom is still there. The freedom to either keep your system
>>> as it is (don't upgrade)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:56:44 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, David W Noon
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > I expect to switch
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> This isn't a discussion. This is a bunch of people offering
>>> displeasure, ideas and/or
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:13:58 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > Have you *ever* thought about machines, that are not x86 or x86_64?
>> > Here's an intersting read:
>> > http://permalink.gmane.or
normally write to / and thereby create udev's rules and rulesets.
>
> In what valid way does access to /usr become something that udev may be
> required to support?
It is a matter of what else do you end having in /bin and /lib.
Remember that udev rules can execute arbitrary cod
rstand this.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:13:55 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM, David W Noon
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > I don't kn
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:21:11 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > I do not have an initramfs, do not
>> > need one, see no need to have one and have not yet seen a valid
>> > technical reason for why
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 16:23:36 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> > In what valid way does access to /usr become something that udev may be
>> > required to support?
>>
>> It is a matter
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:48:45 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
>> wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 16:23:36 schrieb Canek Peláez
>>
t;
> Do we get to vote on this?
Not really: you can vote with your feet and use another
distro/operating system. But the choice is theirs.
> Can we make a difference other than venting here
> and in the forums?
Yes: design and write a different system.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards.
>
> I think you are one of *very* few that understands this.
>
> This reminds me of a old joke. One in four people have a mental issue.
&g
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:39:21 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick
>> wrote:
>> > Unless I misunderstood this and referenced threads, all this agro
>> > is being
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:36:56 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alan McKinnon
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:48:45 -0400
>> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
&g
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards.
>>>
>>
ing named that way...
For Latin-1 with OpenRC, setting /etc/conf.d/keymaps, the key "keymap"
to "la-latin1" works. The keymap is in:
/usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty/la-latin1.map.gz
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
ifferently. It will always
be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the time it will
do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means that it will do it
in the same way.
And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works now" as
a valid argume
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, everybody.
>>>
>>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name.
>>&
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> On Monday, 12. September 2011 12:42:00 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>> > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me and
>> > one
>
omatized (dracut) way of
doing this, by using an initramfs. With an initramfs you can have the
smallest / in the world, and mount everything else afterwards. The
initramfs memory is free'd after the pivot_root happens, so who cares
how big it is?
And yeah, that's not how classical Unix do things. Who cares? Linux
does it so much better.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> The first step in a clean solution, IMO, is to revert that change. The
>>> second step is
E="crypt crypt-gpg nfs" emerge -v sys-kernel/dracut
dracut -H -m "crypt crypt-gpg nfs" --filesystems fuse
...and maybe some -i flags to include the ntfs-3g binaries.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
now, actually write code, and the change will in the
end happen. Probably when dracut seems to be stable enough.
So, please, don't think that anything will be decided by how many
people object in -user. Because, in the first place, not all Gentoo
users are suscribed in gentoo-user, and of those su
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:14:42 -0400
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> I repeat that I pointed this thread since the beginning. We (the
>> users) can argue until our mouths are dry. The final decision (and the
>> o
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> Want to change the direction of the distro? You know what needs to be done.
>
> Be more specific. It sounds like there are a lot of people in here who
>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13. September 2011 17:10:40 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
>> >> Wa
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13. September 2011 17:53:04 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> wrote:
>> > There are already devs on "our" side. Fortunatly on
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> wrote:
>> > If gentoo follows fedora on this mandatory initramfs trail, I'
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:10:40 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> No, by "you know what needs to be done" I mean: code. Contribute.
>> Become a developer. Make shit happens the way you think it should
>>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:10:40PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > Is it simply subscribing to -dev and voicing the conversation there?
>
>> Of course not. But please, do that if you think it will he
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 Sep 2011 11:25:23 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:10:40PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > > Is it simply subscribing to -dev and voicing the conversation there?
>> >
>>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 14 Sep 2011 11:25:23 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:10:40PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> > > Is it simply su
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:37:14 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> >> No, by "you know what needs to be done" I mean: code. Contribute.
>> >> Become a developer. Make shit happens the way you think
forgot a "not". Instead of
>
> Trust me, you would want to run a udev that contained any code written
> by me!
>
> neil probably meant
>
> Trust me, you would not want to run a udev that contained any code
> written by me!
Oh, didn't see that. Thanks.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue
ng who
knows from where; with dracut, your initramfs is simply a subset of
your normal installation, and can be as simple (just mount /usr) or as
complicated (LVM+crypto+network+NFS+whatever) as you want.
Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as
Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of
possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not.
KISS.
It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can
do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for
lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do
anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less
systems.
That's how I see it.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
o would disagree with that
>> point. So let's just drop it and focus on what a good, general
>> solution would look like. (And anyone who says something amounting to
>> 'status quo' for udev needs another explanation of why the udev
>> developer sees the current scenario as broken. And he's right; the
>> current scenario is architecturally unsound. I just think he's wrong
>> about the solution.)
>
> I agree he is wrong about the solution as well.
>
> I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list to see how the
> developers actually feel about possible splitting udev into 2 parts.
>
> I'm not a good enough programmer to do this myself. But if anyone who can code
> and who also agrees with me that my idea for a solution is actually a good
> idea, please let me know and lets see how far we can get with implementing
> this solution.
Now we are talking. I am really, *REALLY* interested to know the devs
saying in the matter.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
>> wrote:
>>> >>
ll see it as a workaround to a more elegant solution, which as
> Joost and others suggest would involve separating udev's probing for devices
> with the rules running of scripts for them.
Maybe that's the more elegant solution. Certainly it will take a lot
more effort, in the sense that so
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
wrote:
> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>
>> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make no
>> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems.
>
> With "Microsoft Windows&quo
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler
wrote:
> Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
>> wrote:
>>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>
>>>> with an initramf
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote:
>> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > > But that's the thing: we (you
to believe that Gentoo users are more than able to
deal with this and almost any other thing.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:04:37 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Mick wrote:
>> > On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> > 1. The minimal ini
ww.easy-ubuntu-linux.com/ubuntu-installation-606-7.html
[2]
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html
[3] http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Partitioning
[4] http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/i386/ch-partitioning.en.html
[5] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2011 4:03 PM, "Joost Roeleveld" wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:38:41 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >
> [--major snippage--]
>> > I see it the other way aroun
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
>>> longer
>>> be
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
201 - 300 of 1149 matches
Mail list logo
