Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 02:30:23PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Michael Hennebry > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > > >> Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could > >> have

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > >> Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could >> have alt.religion.systemd >> >> mark >> >> * vi, not emacs!

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could have alt.religion.systemd mark * vi, not emacs! Nya You mean 6, right? -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

ent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:32:57 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?! Mark Haney wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: >> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop >> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with y

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Mark Haney wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: >> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop >> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your >> worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. >> > Huh. Okay, though I'm

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:15:23AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list. If you > don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a different > OS that suits your childish attitude. Like Windows 95. > > Mailing lists now

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. On 8 June 2017 at 14:51, John Hodrien wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017,

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jonathan Billings wrote: Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh yes, 6.6 and above RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL 6.9. I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information. If you really thought Redhat would switch from upstart of

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:02:38AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > > > > Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific > > > Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. > > > > Upstream 6 uses systemd? > > > >

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 8 June 2017 at 13:02, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote: >> >> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: >> >>> Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific >>> Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote: On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh ___

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 6/8/17 1:15 AM, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote: On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote: On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old way, with

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote: On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL,

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > What is the advantage of patches over a virgin version that can be > subsequently patched ? Doing the change as a patch to the upstream RPM means that, most of the time, you can just apply your patch again whenever the

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the > old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't > work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all configured to

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 12:02 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: > but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and > working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via > patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be > 'fixed' to do it the old

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote: In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a Special Interest Group to get access

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 6/7/17 12:42 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote: In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a Special Interest Group to get

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, June 7, 2017 2:02 pm, John R Pierce wrote: > On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote: >>> In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new >>> distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a >>> Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote: >>> In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new >>> distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a >>> Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote: In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled resources to build packages (and get them rolled into

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 11:23 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > If you want to create a CentOS-7 variant that does not use systemd, > then start a Special Interest Group and create modified packages > to use something else instead ..., much like the this group did > with Debian: > >

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Kenneth Porter wrote: > On 6/7/2017 10:09 AM, Louis Lagendijk wrote: >> I would not call fstab rudimentary. > > Perhaps I phrased that poorly. The idea is that fstab provides a minimal > set of mounts to get off the ground. (My understanding, not saying > that's how it's designed or intended.) > >

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 6/7/2017 10:09 AM, Louis Lagendijk wrote: I would not call fstab rudimentary. Perhaps I phrased that poorly. The idea is that fstab provides a minimal set of mounts to get off the ground. (My understanding, not saying that's how it's designed or intended.) This follows the packaging

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 12:47 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Kenneth Porter wrote: > > On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > > Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". > > > Here's > > > fstab: > > > > In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most >

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:47:58PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > You. Have. To. Be. Joking. WHY? Why doesn't systemd *look* at fstab and > create what it needs on the fly? Why does it only "rudimentary mount"? It does that. Read the man page for 'systemd-fstab-generator', and

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Kenneth Porter wrote: > On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". Here's >> fstab: > > In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most mounting > is done through *.mount unit files. Type "mount" and you'll see a bunch

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/07/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it > reboots, and this is in dmesg: > [ 88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]: > open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many > levels of symbolic links >

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". Here's fstab: In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most mounting is done through *.mount unit files. Type "mount" and you'll see a bunch of other mounts that were

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, June 7, 2017 10:43 am, Warren Young wrote: > On Jun 7, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Mark Haney wrote: >> >> On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >>> >>> Mark stop with the flame baiting please. >>> >>> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Jun 7, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Mark Haney wrote: > > On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >> >> Mark stop with the flame baiting please. >> >> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a >> persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Mark Haney wrote: > On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >> >> Mark stop with the flame baiting please. >> >> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a >> persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of >> course emptie don boot. > I would

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Mark Haney wrote: > >> Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I >> gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more >> than zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for >> things to finish - sush as not getting the hostname

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:31:06AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > I would wholeheartedly disagree. This IS something systemd > specific. I have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody > symlinks. The readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all > necessary on modern hardware. I want my

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote: Mark stop with the flame baiting please. This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of course emptie don boot. I would wholeheartedly disagree. This IS

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more than zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for things to finish - sush as not getting the hostname from dhcp, and so having to

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On 7 June 2017 at 16:13, wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it >>> reboots, and this is in dmesg: >>> [ 88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it >> reboots, and this is in dmesg: >> [ 88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]: >> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl)

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it > reboots, and this is in dmesg: > [ 88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]: > open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many > levels of

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

I'm not sure why it's trying to open anything in /var/tmp to be honest. Jacked up filesystem maybe? Granted I know very little about systemd except it sucks on levels that I can't begin to explain. On 06/07/2017 10:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated a system - as in minutes

[CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it reboots, and this is in dmesg: [ 88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]: open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many levels of symbolic links [ 88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]: