8:28 p.m.
Hi there,
We've discussed live media growing beyond a 4GB squashfs, it's time to vote.
Can I get enough +1s and +0s on the following:
Are we allowing live media with squashfs images over 4GB?
(Note that I'm going to count the votes of all maintainers, Spins SIG
members, representatives of other parties involved (rel-eng, infra,
board), including our Wrangler, and keep a separate count for all votes
should I get much feedback from, say, users).
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
3:50 p.m.
Bryan Kearney wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We've discussed live media growing beyond a 4GB squashfs, it's time to vote.
+0. For me.. as long as the "normal" ones fit on CDs, I am fine.
-- bk
I'm with Bryan on this one. If that's really necessary, I'm okay with
it. But we probably shouldn't bump the size just to bump the size, hu?
(yeah, I know, how does one implement something like this into the
guidelines?)
--Sebastian
4:40 a.m.
Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> We've discussed live media growing beyond a 4GB squashfs, it's time to
vote.
> +0. For me.. as long as the "normal" ones fit on CDs, I am fine.
>
> -- bk
I'm with Bryan on this one.
So am I.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
12:16 a.m.
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:28:44 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com> wrote:
Hi there,
We've discussed live media growing beyond a 4GB squashfs, it's time
to vote.
Can I get enough +1s and +0s on the following:
Are we allowing live media with squashfs images over 4GB?
I would say if there is a spin that wishes to do that, they should be
able to, so +1.
kevin
5564
days inactive
5567
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Bryan Kearney -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Kevin Fenzi -
Sebastian Dziallas