Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] syslinux 4.05-5 does not boot
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/ Sorry folks, didn't want to break something. I don't have the time now to look at it. Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we figure out what's broken. The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
headers.
Allan
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a doubt it does. Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done, however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
In installation chapter we can see:
Available time zones and subzones can be found in the |/usr/share/zoneinfo/<Zone>/<SubZone>| directories.
it's helpful to see the available time zones. To do so, cd to the directory:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/
then type:
# ls
Why not type just this ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/ One string is better than five, and more more obvious, I think. Then...
To list down the contents of that directory. You can do the same to get subzones:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe # ls
And why not type just ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM, <brainworker@lavabit.com> wrote:
In installation chapter we can see:
Why not just update it, its a wiki after all.
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 19:58 -0400, brainworker@lavabit.com wrote:
In installation chapter we can see:
Available time zones and subzones can be found in the |/usr/share/zoneinfo/<Zone>/<SubZone>| directories.
it's helpful to see the available time zones. To do so, cd to the directory:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/
then type:
# ls
Why not type just this ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/ One string is better than five, and more more obvious, I think.
Then...
To list down the contents of that directory. You can do the same to get subzones:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe # ls
And why not type just ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe
Because cd + ls gives an overview about the structure? [spinymouse@archlinux ~]$ cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe [spinymouse@archlinux Europe]$ ls Amsterdam Brussels Guernsey Lisbon Minsk Prague Skopje Vaduz Zaporozhye Andorra Bucharest Helsinki Ljubljana Monaco Riga Sofia Vatican Zurich Athens Budapest Isle_of_Man London Moscow Rome Stockholm Vienna Belfast Chisinau Istanbul Luxembourg Nicosia Samara Tallinn Vilnius Belgrade Copenhagen Jersey Madrid Oslo San_Marino Tirane Volgograd Berlin Dublin Kaliningrad Malta Paris Sarajevo Tiraspol Warsaw Bratislava Gibraltar Kiev Mariehamn Podgorica Simferopol Uzhgorod Zagreb
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 14:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 19:58 -0400, brainworker@lavabit.com wrote:
In installation chapter we can see:
Available time zones and subzones can be found in the |/usr/share/zoneinfo/<Zone>/<SubZone>| directories.
it's helpful to see the available time zones. To do so, cd to the directory:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/
then type:
# ls
Why not type just this ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/ One string is better than five, and more more obvious, I think.
Then...
To list down the contents of that directory. You can do the same to get subzones:
# cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe # ls
And why not type just ? ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe
Because cd + ls gives an overview about the structure? [spinymouse@archlinux ~]$ cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe [spinymouse@archlinux Europe]$ ls Amsterdam Brussels Guernsey Lisbon Minsk Prague Skopje Vaduz Zaporozhye Andorra Bucharest Helsinki Ljubljana Monaco Riga Sofia Vatican Zurich Athens Budapest Isle_of_Man London Moscow Rome Stockholm Vienna Belfast Chisinau Istanbul Luxembourg Nicosia Samara Tallinn Vilnius Belgrade Copenhagen Jersey Madrid Oslo San_Marino Tirane Volgograd Berlin Dublin Kaliningrad Malta Paris Sarajevo Tiraspol Warsaw Bratislava Gibraltar Kiev Mariehamn Podgorica Simferopol Uzhgorod Zagreb
PS: Pardon, the same does ls only, but if you're going the CD steps, it's easier to understand.
Am Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:09 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>:
Because cd + ls gives an overview about the structure?
The output of $ cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe $ ls is exactly the same as $ ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe There's only one difference. The first one firstly changes the working directory from `pwd` to /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe while the second one keeps `pwd` as the working directory. Heiko
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 15:01 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:09 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>:
Because cd + ls gives an overview about the structure?
The output of
$ cd /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe $ ls
is exactly the same as
$ ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe
There's only one difference. The first one firstly changes the working directory from `pwd` to /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe while the second one keeps `pwd` as the working directory.
Heiko
I corrected my mail, with a second mail. For a beginner it's easier to follow the structure if the user several times changes the dir and list several times the contents.
I corrected my mail, with a second mail. For a beginner it's easier to follow the structure if the user several times changes the dir and list several times the contents.
Changing directory with 'cd' makes sense only when we have to do some (several) operations with files in this directory. For example... cd <path> cp <file> <file>.backup nano <file> ...in order not to write prefix (path) all the time before filenames in operations. But when all we want to do is to list the directory contents or anything else that can be written in one simple operation, changing working directory is useless. Useless example (following the structure... just like you said): cd / cd usr cd share cd zoneinfo cd Europe ls The same is made by 'ls /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe' Peace :-)
cd /usr/share/zoneinfo ls and then
cd Europe ls
Gives a first impression to a newbie, about the directories. OTOH it's not very important. IMO both is ok, with and without cd. Arch Wikis usually are very good :). Regards, Ralf
On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/ Sorry folks, didn't want to break something. I don't have the time now to look at it. Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we figure out what's broken. The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
headers.
Allan
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a doubt it does.
Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done, however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
Myra
-- Ionuț
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote: > It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/ > Sorry folks, didn't want to break something. > I don't have the time now to look at it. Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we figure out what's broken. The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
headers.
Allan
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a doubt it does.
Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done, however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
Myra
-- Ionuț
Ionut: Some old habits are hard to break. Some of us "old foggys" are just to set in some of our ways. What can I say. I don't mean to be inflammatory here, but what's the difference? I've always figured it was my computer, my system, set up my way, and it's not hurting any one else. I guess I'll just keep my comments, good or bad, to my self. Sorry for the noise. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote: > It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/ > Sorry folks, didn't want to break something. > I don't have the time now to look at it. Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we figure out what's broken. The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
headers.
Allan
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a doubt it does.
Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done, however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
Myra
-- Ionuț
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage. to see journal size: device=/dev/sda7; debugfs -R "stat <$(tune2fs -l $device | awk '/Journal.inode/ {print $3}')>" $device |& awk '/Size: / {print $6}' | head -1; unset device John
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage.
Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage. Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Ext2 Ext2 stands for second extended file system. It was introduced in 1993. Developed by Rémy Card. This was developed to overcome the limitation of the original ext file system. Ext2 does not have journaling feature. On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do the over head of journaling. Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB Overall ext2 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB Have a look at entry 5.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Then use ext4 without a journal.
[snip]
On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do the over head of journaling.
Same holds for ext4 without journaling...
Am 09.08.2012 17:34, schrieb Baho Utot:
On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage. Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Ext2
Ext2 stands for second extended file system. It was introduced in 1993. Developed by Rémy Card. This was developed to overcome the limitation of the original ext file system. Ext2 does not have journaling feature. On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do the over head of journaling. Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB Overall ext2 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB
Have a look at entry 5.
Thanks for telling me to look at "entry 5" but not enumerating the entries. Thanks for quoting 10 year old information without giving a source. What are you trying to tell us again?
On 08/09/2012 11:45 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:34, schrieb Baho Utot:
On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage. Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Ext2
Ext2 stands for second extended file system. It was introduced in 1993. Developed by Rémy Card. This was developed to overcome the limitation of the original ext file system. Ext2 does not have journaling feature. On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do the over head of journaling. Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB Overall ext2 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB
Have a look at entry 5. Thanks for telling me to look at "entry 5" but not enumerating the entries. Thanks for quoting 10 year old information without giving a source.
What are you trying to tell us again?
I gave you credit to be able to count, I guess you have trouble with that. It is not 10 year old information it was published just after ext4 came out google is your friend.
Am 09.08.2012 17:58, schrieb Baho Utot:
It is not 10 year old information it was published just after ext4 came out
google is your friend.
It is still outdated information. After ext4 came out, it took a few months until Google started implementing ext4 without a journal - precisely because ext2 was outdated and had bad performance. This work has been finished long ago and is available to everyone. It seems Google is _your_ friend.
On 08/09/12 at 06:08pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:58, schrieb Baho Utot:
It is not 10 year old information it was published just after ext4 came out
google is your friend.
It is still outdated information. After ext4 came out, it took a few months until Google started implementing ext4 without a journal - precisely because ext2 was outdated and had bad performance. This work has been finished long ago and is available to everyone.
It seems Google is _your_ friend.
... and another enthralling battle of wits brought to you by arch-general! --
On 08/09/2012 12:12 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote: [putolin]
... and another enthralling battle of wits brought to you by arch-general!
I think that it's general arch....commander and chief
On 08/09/2012 12:08 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:58, schrieb Baho Utot:
It is not 10 year old information it was published just after ext4 came out
google is your friend. It is still outdated information. After ext4 came out, it took a few months until Google started implementing ext4 without a journal - precisely because ext2 was outdated and had bad performance. This work has been finished long ago and is available to everyone.
It seems Google is _your_ friend.
What ever, I am not going to bow down to you
Thanks for posting the information about journalless ext4. I now have a 100MB ext4 /boot partition with no journal on my flash drive rather than using ext2. Syslinux is working perfectly with this configuration. ~Kyle
On 08/09/12 at 05:27pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage.
Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4? Manolo --
Am 09.08.2012 17:35, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
On 08/09/12 at 05:27pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage.
Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
There's HOWTOs on doing this. You won't use all the features, but your files will convert to extents while being updated. To be safe, reinstall your bootloader after converting.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:35:04 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
On 08/09/12 at 05:27pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage.
Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4
Manolo
-- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
On 08/09/12 at 11:18am, Leonid Isaev wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:35:04 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
Is the information on the move from ext3 to ext4 valid for the issue at hand? M
Am 09.08.2012 18:23, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
On 08/09/12 at 11:18am, Leonid Isaev wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:35:04 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
Is the information on the move from ext3 to ext4 valid for the issue at hand?
Yes.
On 08/09/12 at 06:26pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 18:23, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
On 08/09/12 at 11:18am, Leonid Isaev wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:35:04 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
Is the information on the move from ext3 to ext4 valid for the issue at hand?
Yes.
Thanks, Thomas and Leonid. M --
Am 09.08.2012 18:27, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
On 08/09/12 at 06:26pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 18:23, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
On 08/09/12 at 11:18am, Leonid Isaev wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:35:04 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?
Is the information on the move from ext3 to ext4 valid for the issue at hand?
Yes.
Thanks, Thomas and Leonid. M
To be more precise: The wiki shows the following command: # tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/the_partition This converts ext3 to ext4 or ext2 to journal-less ext4. # tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index,has_journal /dev/the_partition This converts both ext2 and ext3 to ext4 # tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index,^has_journal /dev/the_partition This converts both ext2 and ext3 to journal-less ext4 I haven't tried most of this, but it should work. (Beware: This command alone doesn't work, only use it as described in the wiki.)
Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is superior in every aspect.
ext4 is superior and it even beats btrfs in some speed tests. However, it is rare that any new thing is superior in every respect. An ext2 filesystem is easier to recover with tools like testdisk rather than file carving and ext2 is supported on more operating systems. Neither of these apply to /boot but if you don't need the more complex journaling (that allows writes of a sort on a read only mount) where your kernel is stored then why have it, though there seems to be a reason now. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:12:34 -0400 Jonathan <eyeswide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski > <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote: >> It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/ >> Sorry folks, didn't want to break something. >> I don't have the time now to look at it. > Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch. > > I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we > figure out what's broken. The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
headers.
Allan
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a doubt it does.
Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done, however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
Myra
-- Ionuț
In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot times or disk usage.
But there is no ext{2,3} these days. The driver is ext4 for all ext* FS, only configurations differ...
to see journal size: device=/dev/sda7; debugfs -R "stat <$(tune2fs -l $device | awk '/Journal.inode/ {print $3}')>" $device |& awk '/Size: / {print $6}' | head -1; unset device
John
-- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
participants (14)
-
Baho Utot
-
brainworker＠lavabit.com
-
Heiko Baums
-
Ionut Biru
-
Jonathan
-
Kevin Chadwick
-
Kyle
-
Leonid Isaev
-
Manolo Martínez
-
Myra Nelson
-
Oon-Ee Ng
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tom Gundersen