Quick LVM Question. I'm going to set up a system with a SATA II drive. I anticipate that somewhere in the future I may need to add an additional drive. Should I set up the initial drive using LVM or just wait until another drive is needed...? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
William Hammond wrote:
Quick LVM Question.
I'm going to set up a system with a SATA II drive. I anticipate that somewhere in the future I may need to add an additional drive.
Should I set up the initial drive using LVM or just wait until another drive is needed...?
If you plan on using LVM later, then yes. On the other hand, there's no requirement that you use LVM just because you have a second drive. My current desktop machine has 6 disk drives in it, and I'm NOT using LVM. LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
At 10:59 AM 5/23/2008, Washington Irving wrote:
William Hammond wrote:
Quick LVM Question. I'm going to set up a system with a SATA II drive. I anticipate that somewhere in the future I may need to add an additional drive. Should I set up the initial drive using LVM or just wait until another drive is needed...?
If you plan on using LVM later, then yes.
On the other hand, there's no requirement that you use LVM just because you have a second drive. My current desktop machine has 6 disk drives in it, and I'm NOT using LVM.
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
Good Point, been there....
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 23 May 2008 01:59:37 pm Washington Irving wrote:
William Hammond wrote:
Quick LVM Question.
I'm going to set up a system with a SATA II drive. I anticipate that somewhere in the future I may need to add an additional drive.
Should I set up the initial drive using LVM or just wait until another drive is needed...?
If you plan on using LVM later, then yes.
Wellllll...I don't know about that. Thought I would like the flexibility of that so I used it on 10.2. When I went to install 10.3 (on another drive and keeping 10.2) I found that it wanted to combine the 10.2 and 10.3 volumes. Backed out of that quickly because I wanted both OS's to be separate
On the other hand, there's no requirement that you use LVM just because you have a second drive. My current desktop machine has 6 disk drives in it, and I'm NOT using LVM.
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
That too! Bob S -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2008-05-23T13:59:37, Washington Irving <washton.irving@gmail.com> wrote:
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default. We've not had a "LVM hosed my system" bug since 2000, I think. Regards, Lars -- Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 26 May 2008 05:50:10 am Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2008-05-23T13:59:37, Washington Irving <washton.irving@gmail.com> wrote:
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
We've not had a "LVM hosed my system" bug since 2000, I think.
See that, and it is not advertised. I'm starting using it in virtual box in 2008, just because is not buried under button at the end of partitioning tool.
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde Good one, http://en.opensuse.org/Famous_quotes
-- Regards, Rajko http://en.opensuse.org/Portal needs helpful hands. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 12:50 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
I don't trust it. I have had filesystem damages (some of them caused by software) that completely hosed a partition, where the unrecoverable damage was always limited to a single partition. I don't have the confidence that a similar problem would not hose the entire LVM system and all the contained partitions. I have seen here (in this list) problems people were having with LVM when upgrading from one suse version to another, and very few answers. Like some rescue suse dvd not being able to mount lvm partitions at some time. If I have a problem with LVM and I have to do some manual recovery, I simply don't know what to do and where to ask. Is there a disaster recovery on LVM howto for dummies? There is a guesspart program that can find the partitions if the partition table gets deleted. Is there a similar program that can recover an LVM? If I keep several systems on the same computer; will not the different linuxes with different LVM versions contend with one another? If a system gets hossed, will I be able to use another of the systems (another linux or suse version) to try to recover the other system, if both are on LVM? LVM is for experts only. You can not push LVM on every body, as we can't handle it. We don't have the knowledge. Specially for home users. Yes, I tried... I did once try to install LVM on my computer, using yast. I had to abort, I wasn't sure what Yast was going to do. Now, even though I aborted, yast thinks there is an LVM somewhere and lists it in the partitioner. Other versions list /dev/evms/hdc - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOqYktTMYHG2NR9URAkbEAKCRnF497i2+GzLGwELz9yMh+eDuVwCgiC0O AMH7DjXV7ecfML1S3A2+QbU= =HnzH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2008/05/26 13:59 (GMT+0200) Carlos E. R. apparently typed:
The Monday 2008-05-26 at 12:50 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
I don't trust it.
I can't say I don't trust it, nor can I say I can, as I've given it little opportunity one way or the other. What I do know about its "suitability" to "make it the default" can be found in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430836#c11 -- ". . . . in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you . . . ." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 08:35 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
I don't trust it.
I can't say I don't trust it, nor can I say I can, as I've given it little opportunity one way or the other. What I do know about its "suitability" to "make it the default" can be found in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430836#c11
Hah! #c10 is instructive of the lack of knowledge! Physical limit, my foot! There is no limit, it is a chained linked list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Boot_Record ] Unlike primary partitions, which are all described by a single partition ] table within the MBR, and thus limited in number, each EBR precedes the ] logical partition it describes.2 If another logical partition follows, ] then the first EBR will contain an entry pointing to the next EBR; thus, ] multiple EBRs form a sort of chain from the first to the next, and ] finally to the last one.3 This means the number of logical drives that ] can be formed within an extended partition is limited only by the amount ] of available disk space.4 ] ] ... ] ] Note 4: Under most DOS and some Windows operating systems, the number of ] logical drives in an extended partition was limited to 23, because the ] FDISK program couldn't create any more drives than it could assign a ] drive letter to; thus, assuming C: is a primary drive, the DOS drive ] letters D: through Z: allow for only 23 more drives. Under Windows NT ] and later, an unlimited number of logical partitions can be created ] using the Computer Management's, Disk Management Extension; though in ] practice, users rarely created more than 23, since the Windows NT shell ] (user interface) was still limited to accessing only those drives with ] an A: through Z: drive letter. Some newer operating systems may ] implement an AA: through ZZ: drive lettering scheme; making it possible ] to access over 670 logical drives. And there is a detailed description of the partition structure. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOsxntTMYHG2NR9URAm06AJ4w+uqqxuyd+TydjPLtPr1NltNpwwCeLd5b B75SiTcA9wjhnIFdo/nPxEA= =9PGs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
|-----Original Message----- |From: Carlos E. R. [mailto:carlos.e.r@opensuse.org] |Sent: 26. mai 2008 13:59 |To: OS-en |Subject: Re: [opensuse] LVM | | |The Monday 2008-05-26 at 12:50 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: | |> LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The |> flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default. | |I don't trust it. | |I have had filesystem damages (some of them caused by software) that |completely hosed a partition, where the unrecoverable damage was always |limited to a single partition. I don't have the confidence that a similar |problem would not hose the entire LVM system and all the contained |partitions. Anyone who has tried a professional LV like veritas VxVM, IBM AIX-LVM, and Especially Suns ZFS, find linux-lvm a crude, feature-less confusing product. I do not want the job of running a production critical Sun X4500 with 48 disks connected to a single Marvell SATA controller with the LVM interface. I recall the times when 4GB disks were the largest, Then a good LV was Appreciated. Now we can just buy a dead cheap Sata raid-controllers. But never the less ZFS would have been nice. -- MortenB, Oslo, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Morten Bjørnsvik wrote:
Anyone who has tried a professional LV like veritas VxVM, IBM AIX-LVM, and Especially Suns ZFS, find linux-lvm a crude, feature-less confusing product.
I do not want the job of running a production critical Sun X4500 with 48 disks connected to a single Marvell SATA controller with the LVM interface.
I haven't tried any of those professional products, but we're running linux-LVM over 72 drives in two arrays hooked up over FC. LVM does what it's supposed to do, I have no complaints sofar.
But never the less ZFS would have been nice.
+1. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
LVM is for experts only. You can not push LVM on every body, as we can't handle it. We don't have the knowledge. Specially for home users.
There has to be a question of whether home users have the need as well. I'm not convinced an average home user has much need for LVM. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 15:52 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
LVM is for experts only. You can not push LVM on every body, as we can't handle it. We don't have the knowledge. Specially for home users.
There has to be a question of whether home users have the need as well. I'm not convinced an average home user has much need for LVM.
It is being propossed by Novell/Suse as a method to bypass the new limit of the highest partition number being 15 (ie, 11 secondary partitions), not as a method of creating large pseudo-disks - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOsi/tTMYHG2NR9URAkMNAJ9FldyaWx2YSzHKl6HUorzRTGG19gCffqR9 WAVEqLZsCLcmjqKWrgqxRA8= =kmgM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
LVM is for experts only. You can not push LVM on every body, as we can't handle it. We don't have the knowledge. Specially for home users.
There has to be a question of whether home users have the need as well. I'm not convinced an average home user has much need for LVM.
It is being propossed by Novell/Suse as a method to bypass the new limit of the highest partition number being 15 (ie, 11 secondary partitions), not as a method of creating large pseudo-disks
Oh, I didn't realise that. I saw Lars Marowsky-Bree saying "I wish we'd finally make it the default.", but that sounds more like a perosnal opinion. What happened to the idea of using the device-mapper for accessing these many partitions? I tried that out a a while ago, it works fine. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 16:47 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
It is being propossed by Novell/Suse as a method to bypass the new limit of the highest partition number being 15 (ie, 11 secondary partitions), not as a method of creating large pseudo-disks
Oh, I didn't realise that. I saw Lars Marowsky-Bree saying "I wish we'd finally make it the default.", but that sounds more like a perosnal opinion.
Perhaps, dunno. LVM was proposed on the release notes of 10.3 for that purpose (or was it an error message?), and I read recently other developer say the almost same thing - when it is fact that there is no migration path from fixed partition to LVM, and poses a whole nest of problems for home users.
What happened to the idea of using the device-mapper for accessing these many partitions? I tried that out a a while ago, it works fine.
I have no idea at all. The last news I read about this, months ago, was that it wasn't feasible, and the proponents of this solution (in the bugzilla where we were talking this) failed to clarify and explain a method to do that for plain users. Felix may know more about that. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOtaqtTMYHG2NR9URArqCAJ0YbSHvp4456Yl13oAjyRaA8eCLLACfbayJ fgHJXtJaYxJLAcgRCZT7Y4Q= =Cldr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What happened to the idea of using the device-mapper for accessing these many partitions? I tried that out a a while ago, it works fine.
I have no idea at all. The last news I read about this, months ago, was that it wasn't feasible, and the proponents of this solution (in the bugzilla where we were talking this) failed to clarify and explain a method to do that for plain users.
Oh well. I tried it very quickly and it worked just fine. I can't see any immediate reason why it couldn't be supported at installation time - the installation system already uses the devicemapper for various support. Do you happen to know which report this was discussed in? /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 18:02 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What happened to the idea of using the device-mapper for accessing these many partitions? I tried that out a a while ago, it works fine.
I have no idea at all. The last news I read about this, months ago, was that it wasn't feasible, and the proponents of this solution (in the bugzilla where we were talking this) failed to clarify and explain a method to do that for plain users.
Oh well. I tried it very quickly and it worked just fine. I can't see any immediate reason why it couldn't be supported at installation time - the installation system already uses the devicemapper for various support.
I haven't seen a document explaining it. Is it supported by Yast installer/updater?
Do you happen to know which report this was discussed in?
It was dropped in 305095#32 * Bug 218122 - Support more than 15 partitions on libata Opened: 2006-11-03 21:51 MDT Last modified: 2007-09-21 07:31:06 MDT It proposes using dm_linear. Not conclusive. * Bug 305095 - CD-Installation fails when partitions >15 are involved Opened: 2007-08-27 18:23 MDT Last modified: 2007-09-18 09:50:59 MDT - use hwprobe=-modules.pata - #9: proposes using dm_linear, (this) "will invoke kpartx which in turn will generate device-mapper tables for all partitions on that drive" - activate_dm_linear - #32 says: "the activate_dm_linear support does not work as documented. This needs some more work for 11.0." (AJ). I know no more about this. * Bug 309070 - Install impossible in a pata system with more than 16 partitions. Opened: 2007-09-09 11:20 MDT Last modified: 2007-09-10 09:39:17 MDT - proposes to use dm_linear. No instructions. - suggest to change to minor numbers over 255, which is the real hurdle. Those are my sources of information: basically I know no more. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOxNwtTMYHG2NR9URAsy/AJ9i3CpdFrKohC6h4Sadf5ppy42cBQCggOh+ tHPUgN1zEI5JO9fc836xLzc= =KP8L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Monday 2008-05-26 at 18:02 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Oh well. I tried it (device mapper for more than 16 partitions) very quickly and it worked just fine. I can't see any immediate reason why it couldn't be supported at installation time - the installation system already uses the devicemapper for various support.
I haven't seen a document explaining it. Is it supported by Yast installer/updater?
Not that I know of - but when device-mapper is supported (for builtin/fake RAID for instance), it seems like a minor thing to also support >15 partitions in the same way.
* Bug 305095 - CD-Installation fails when partitions >15 are involved Opened: 2007-08-27 18:23 MDT Last modified: 2007-09-18 09:50:59 MDT
- use hwprobe=-modules.pata - #9: proposes using dm_linear, (this) "will invoke kpartx which in turn will generate device-mapper tables for all partitions on that drive" - activate_dm_linear - #32 says: "the activate_dm_linear support does not work as documented. This needs some more work for 11.0." (AJ).
Sounds like something is already under way here. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2008-05-27 at 11:40 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
I haven't seen a document explaining it. Is it supported by Yast installer/updater?
Not that I know of - but when device-mapper is supported (for builtin/fake RAID for instance), it seems like a minor thing to also support >15 partitions in the same way.
It may be a minor thing for you, but for me it is major - I have no idea how to use that. And of course, it has to be supported by the installer/upgrader, else the system can get hosed, or even not installable.
* Bug 305095 - CD-Installation fails when partitions >15 are involved Opened: 2007-08-27 18:23 MDT Last modified: 2007-09-18 09:50:59 MDT
- use hwprobe=-modules.pata - #9: proposes using dm_linear, (this) "will invoke kpartx which in turn will generate device-mapper tables for all partitions on that drive" - activate_dm_linear - #32 says: "the activate_dm_linear support does not work as documented. This needs some more work for 11.0." (AJ).
Sounds like something is already under way here.
Maybe, but I have no news of developments on that area. And there is this comment in Bug 309070#13: ] The plan to use kpartx to create DM maps ] instead of kernel partitions create IMHO more problems than it solves. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIO9l5tTMYHG2NR9URAhtJAKCIe939VwhMmTL1lkU1Uy4CrU/g0ACfSm67 9pfrSusZyS3F9RMuov0B+sA= =RAaa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 13:59 +0200, I wrote:
The Monday 2008-05-26 at 12:50 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
I don't trust it.
.... I forgot to say: it is not cross-platform. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOspKtTMYHG2NR9URAmdQAJ9aL4P9JFEHNSOR4pF0W3BiDcnPRQCfUIz3 onUIL558jQQdqWGT6b6f/yA= =KKC8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:10 +0200 Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> wrote:
On 2008-05-23T13:59:37, Washington Irving <washton.irving@gmail.com> wrote:
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
We've not had a "LVM hosed my system" bug since 2000, I think.
Lars, I like LVM and have been using it on various systems (Hp-UX, Tru64 Unix, RHEL, etc.) for years. We have a number of servers in our office running RHEL 4 configured with LVM. The flexibility is excellent. BUT.... I recently had an intermittently bad disk, that essentially required me to rebuild that system. I could not remove it from the group. However, I don't think it is really ready for the average non-technical user today. I didn't lose any data because the system was actually the backup system. -- -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-05-26 at 12:50 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
We've not had a "LVM hosed my system" bug since 2000, I think.
Here you have one: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2008-05/msg02415.html ] Back in the early days of 10.3, there was a problem with the kernel not ] supporting SATA drives with certain chipsets (SiS, in my case). At the ] time, this effectively hosed my SATA based LVM array, but I installed ] instead onto an IDE drive, re-installed my /home from backups, and ] waited until the bug was fixed so I can now use my SATA drives. No more ] LVM, though :( Not strictly an LVM bug, but it affects. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIPbrYtTMYHG2NR9URAh8BAJ9invpxVCKxAesEyL8DedB6nCOuNACdFbZa o+6Sx0TH/kYk1tTfG/RwT1Q= =AxaH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Bob S -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E. R. -
Felix Miata -
Jerry Feldman -
Lars Marowsky-Bree -
Morten Bjørnsvik -
Per Jessen -
Rajko M. -
Washington Irving -
William Hammond