similar to: Processed: user debian-qa@lists.debian.org, tagging 714794, tagging 710035, found 668754 in 0.36-1 ...

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > tags 717155 + sid jessie Bug #717155 [iscsitarget-dkms] iscsitarget-dkms: Fails to build against Linux 3.10 Added tag(s) sid and jessie. > tags 717157 + sid jessie Bug #717157 [blktap-dkms] blktap-dkms: Fails to build against Linux 3.10 Added tag(s) sid and jessie. > tags 717166 + sid jessie Bug #717166 [openswan-modules-dkms]

Hi Everyone, We are thinking of venturing into the world of hosting Windows DomUs on our Xen infrastructure. As Windows generally requires a lot more IOPS than Linux does, we are trying to do everything we can to improve performance. While using SSDs would solve the IOPS problem, SSDs suffer from limited write cycles. So, we have the idea of using Flashcache from Facebook to use a single SSD as

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > severity 813678 serious Bug #813678 [blktap-dkms] blktap-dkms: fails to build with mainline 4.4 based kernels Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > severity 813037 serious Bug #813037 [src:flashcache] flashcache: will not build against mainline 4.4 based kernels Severity set to 'serious' from

Hi, My shop is a long time (~2006) ZFS user, considering moving off OpenSolaris due to a number of non-technical issues. We use ZFS for all of our MySQL databases. It''s cheap/fast snapshots are critical to our backup strategy, and we rely on the L2ARC and dedicated log device (i.e. NVRAM) features to accelerate our pools with SSDs. I''ve read through the archives for comments on

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > # bugs with submitter debian at abeckmann.de > submitter 479445 ! Bug #479445 [gnuplot] gnuplot: wrong line numbers for missing files reported during replot Changed Bug submitter to 'Andreas Beckmann <anbe at debian.org>' from 'Andreas Beckmann <debian at abeckmann.de>' > submitter 681568 ! Bug #681568

Hi Guys, I've been desperately trying to find some comparative performance information about the different mailbox formats supported by Dovecot in order to make an assessment on which format is right for our environment. This is a brand new build, with customer mailboxes to be migrated in over the course of 3-4 months. Some details on our new environment: * Approximately 1.6M+

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > user debian-qa at lists.debian.org Setting user to debian-qa at lists.debian.org (was anbe at debian.org). > found 728743 331.20-1 Bug #728743 [libgl1-nvidia-glx] corrupts the signal block mask (SigBlk) breaking unrelated Bug #733816 [libgl1-nvidia-glx] khotkeys launches actions with SIGHUP blocked, leading to unclosable xterms Marked as

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > user debian-qa at lists.debian.org Setting user to debian-qa at lists.debian.org (was debian at abeckmann.de). > usertags 669005 piuparts Bug#669005: uninstallable on sid (might just need require a rebuild) There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: piuparts. > affects 669005 + shogun-python-static shogun-python-modular

Package: blktap-dkms Followup-For: Bug #717157 I picked the commits from upstream. You should consider pushing it to the archive. root at ibmx3650m2-210-147:/usr/src/blktap-2.0.91# diff -Naru ring.c /tmp/ring.c --- ring.c 2013-09-17 11:47:27.468200000 -0400 +++ /tmp/ring.c 2013-09-17 11:47:56.836200000 -0400 @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ pgoff = 1 + request->usr_idx *

Package: xen-utils-common Version: 4.1.2-1 Severity: important User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8): http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-removedetails Filing this as important as having a piuparts

Package: xcp-guest-templates Version: 0.1-4 Severity: important User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8): http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-removedetails Filing this as important as having a piuparts

Hi, Has, or does, anyone use dm-cache - specifically for caching SAN based storage locally? I''m looking for a way to speed up SAN based storage on a CentOS 5.6 + XEN Hypervisor which uses iSCSI mounted SAN storage. dm-cache seems like it do the trick, but I''ve never heard of it before until someone mentioned it in another mailing list. A quick search on google didn''t

Package: blktap-dkms Version: 2.0.91-1 Severity: important User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8): http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-removedetails Filing this as important as having a piuparts clean

Package: xcp-squeezed Version: 1.3-13 Severity: serious User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install due to incorrect dependencies in the init.d LSB header. Some debian notes are available from at http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): Selecting

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > found 728266 2.0.91-2 Bug #728266 [blktap-dkms] Depends on obsolete packages Marked as found in versions blktap-dkms/2.0.91-2. > tags 728266 + jessie sid Bug #728266 [blktap-dkms] Depends on obsolete packages Added tag(s) sid and jessie. > severity 701278 important Bug #701278 [src:flush] flush: ftbfs with GCC-4.8 Severity set to

Package: xcp-networkd Version: 1.3.2-2 Severity: serious User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install. As per definition of the release team this makes the package too buggy for a release, thus the severity. >From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): Selecting previously unselected package

Package: xenstore-utils Version: 4.17.0+74-g3eac216e6e-1 Severity: serious User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package ships (or creates) a broken symlink: 0m15.9s ERROR: FAIL: Broken symlinks: /usr/bin/xenstore-control -> ../lib/xen-common/bin/xen-utils-wrapper (xenstore-utils) cheers, Andreas

Package: xen-utils-common Version: 3.0.3-0-1 Severity: serious Justification: makes package uninstallable Usertags: grid5000 Hi, During a piuparts run over all the packages in etch, I ran into a problem with your package: Setting up xen-utils-common (3.0.3-0-1) ... ln: creating symbolic link `/etc/udev/rules.d/z60_xen-backend.rules' to `../xen-backend.rules': No such file or directory

Package: libxen-dev Version: 4.6.0-1+nmu2 Severity: serious User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package ships a broken symlink: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxlutil.so -> libxlutil.so. (notice the trailing dot, it is part of the target). You probably want this target instead: libxlutil-4.6.so Andreas

Quoting mancyborg at gmail.com: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:50:29 -0600 > Rick Romero <rick at havokmon.com> wrote: > >> LOL. >> >> This is a horrible subject line.? I've been trying to resolve a DDOS >> issue, and ignoring a lot of email.? >> >> Here I had been thinking this was a sex-spam, and I just got around to >> wondering why the