On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:22:14PM +, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
While I'm not sure
TL;DR: Thoughts on using systemd .service files on non-Linux ports.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:20:10AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Note that there are two options that could be explored, to remove the
need to maintain init scripts:
- generating sysvinit scripts from systemd service files or
Ben Hutchings writes (Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to
default to in Debian.):
I do. I think non-Linux ports make more sense as derivative
distributions. This gives them the freedom to drop packages that aren't
worth porting, work around Linux-isms as necessary, improve
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013, at 5:10, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I do. I think non-Linux ports make more sense as derivative
distributions. This gives them the freedom to drop packages that aren't
worth porting, work around Linux-isms as necessary, improve integration
with their own kernel, and release
Hi Helmut,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:22:54AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Having read the parts of the ctte bug, it feels odd to preclude the
option of supporting multiple init systems from discussion or
consideration. If Debian is to support only one init system and that one
init system is
On 10/29/2013 10:27 AM, Brian May wrote:
On 29 October 2013 12:21, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
mailto:r...@debian.org wrote:
In other words, I don't think it would make any sense at all to
standardize on upstart or systemd and then ask people to continue to
write
init
On Oct 29, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
There are various other options, including not changing away from sysvinit
or someone porting the necessary support to Hurd and kFreeBSD. Or, of
course, dropping Hurd and kFreeBSD, although I'm sure that no one wants
that outcome.
Well. If the
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:38:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
My understanding is that init scripts will still be required for FreeBSD
and The Hurd.
I would not assume that. At least, I personally don't think that
switching to upstart or systemd
2013/10/29 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org:
[...]
Just wondering, if systemd upstream cares only for Linux and that's
considered okay, might they also start dropping support for
architectures they stop caring about (or for commercial reasons)? Say
MIPS, s390, SPARC. In that case,
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org writes:
But that seems like the easiest way to not break what is already working
in GNU/kFreeBSD, Hurd - and on users' own Linux systems if they have
non-Debian software using SysV init scripts.
The last is unrelated. Both systemd and upstart support
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 00:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
(Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support
multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to
lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian.
Absolutely not true. As Tollef mentions in his follow-up,
On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And here is the reply from Gentoo developer Patrick Lauer:
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes:
On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And here is the reply from
(Removing the ctte bug from CC to reduce noise)
On 10/29/2013 11:59 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
On 29/10/13 01:34, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Actually quite amazing how painless that was, though I most certainly
don't expect it to be functional yet.
I have tested it now. It's actually running and doing 'something'! And
it is colourful.
I'm testing it inside of a BSD jail currently.
On 10/29/2013 09:34 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:47:56 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote:
Note that OpenRC already works on some (non-Debian) BSD platforms, and
that it should be trivial to have it to build on kFreeBSD and Hurd,
And so I came up with the attached
Lucas Nussbaum leader at debian.org writes:
I agree. I don't think that many substantial new arguments are going to
be brought by waiting more on this topic. And it is clear that we have
reached a point where not having clear guidance is severely hurting the
project.
I agree.
I think that
Thorsten Glaser writes (Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to
default to in Debian.):
Finally, I believe strongly that the CTTE request is badly worded,
because the decision on whether we require support for more than
one (the “default”) init system must be decided either
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Also, why have people been shying back from GRs like they are a
plague? They are a good, and _the_, way to ask the people that
make up Debian for their opinion. As someone else said in one of
these threads: they don’t eat babies.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
While I'm not sure from your mail whether you meant to suggest otherwise, I do
think that
Wouter Verhelst schrieb am Monday, den 28. October 2013:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
While I'm not sure from
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
(Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support
multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to
lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian. I won’t miss it, but
just saying.) Whatever CTTE and,
since that will help our non-Linux
ports
and embedded Linux, especially deep embedded systems such as cortex and
blackfin which is coming along fairly nicely too.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And the RH PR circus has already started around it.
Lennart's g+ note is
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 19:23 +, Mirosław Baran wrote:
And the RH PR circus has already started around it.
Lennart's g+ note is written in his usual half-truth/half-omission mode. Not
helpful at all.
I guess just stating something like this, without real technical
arguments why he is wrong
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:23:11PM +, Mirosław Baran wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And the
]] Thorsten Glaser
(Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support
multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to
lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian. I won’t miss it, but
just saying.)
No, it won't necessarily lead to that. It might just as well
For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
about all this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And the RH PR circus has already started around it.
Lennart's g+ note is written in his usual half-truth/half-omission
Please lets see what is around the corner before giving merit to
these scare tactics especially for a Gnome desktop whose user base has
and is rapidly declining.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:20:28PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Kevin, please change your tone on Debian lists. Your behavior is
starting to border on malicious. If this continues, I will request that
you get removed from the Debian lists. I'm sure others would join me.
You're showing a lack of
I'll say no
more to prevent the usual Turing Complete bullshit argument popping
up but as complex as you choose is a good thing.
And I forgot to say you can choose to make the Linux kernel as simple
or complex as you like so taht's another falsity that he should have
allowed comments to
Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk (2013-10-28):
Please lets see what is around the corner before giving merit to these
scare tactics especially for a Gnome desktop whose user base has and
is rapidly declining.
Please refrain from continuing with that kind of chatter. It doesn't
really help.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:40:09 -0400
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Kevin, please change your tone on Debian lists. Your behavior is
starting to border on malicious. If this continues, I will request that
you get removed from the Debian lists. I'm sure others would join me.
You're showing a lack of
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:43:13PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Well if I have offended anyone I apologise as that has not been my
attention and I'm sure you would like me if you met me and realise
this.
I have no doubt, and I wasn't offended, I'm just growing tired of your
disrespect for
previously on this list Cyril Brulebois contributed:
Please refrain from continuing with that kind of chatter. It doesn't
really help. Quite the contrary.
Fine but whether intended upstream or not, it cannot be argued with as
truth.
(Also, setting an attribution line with the name of the
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:40:09 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Change your tone.
Then please, try to show a better example of how that is done, instead
of this:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:07:59 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
I mean, no offense, but I've never seen you involved in Debian before
[...]
Kevin Chadwick dijo [Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:43:13PM +]:
Kevin, please change your tone on Debian lists. Your behavior is
starting to border on malicious. If this continues, I will request that
you get removed from the Debian lists. I'm sure others would join me.
You're showing a
Wouter Verhelst wou...@master.debian.org writes:
Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do
support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we
(well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy should be
that a package should ship
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:47:56 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote:
Note that OpenRC already works on some (non-Debian) BSD platforms, and
that it should be trivial to have it to build on kFreeBSD and Hurd,
And so I came up with the attached patch which gets it building on
GNU/kFreeBSD, and it passed
On 29 October 2013 12:21, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
In other words, I don't think it would make any sense at all to
standardize on upstart or systemd and then ask people to continue to write
init scripts in the long run (transition issues aside). Getting rid of
init scripts is not
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
On 29 October 2013 12:21, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
In other words, I don't think it would make any sense at all to
standardize on upstart or systemd and then ask people to continue to
write init scripts in the long run (transition
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 19:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
On 29 October 2013 12:21, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
In other words, I don't think it would make any sense at all to
standardize on upstart or systemd and then ask people to
On 25/10/13 at 12:16 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
In response to the recent threads, I'd like to ask the tech-ctte to
please vote on and decide on the default init system for Debian.
I agree. I don't think that many substantial new arguments are going to
be brought by waiting more on this
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:07:36AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that there are two different questions:
1) Could you clarify which init system(s) must be supported by packages
involved during system startup (daemons, etc.) and low-level services?
[ the answer to that
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think either of these are the right question. Even if we change
the default init system for jessie, because we *must* support backwards
compatibility with sysvinit for upgrades, there is no justification for
requiring packages to do anything
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think either of these are the right question. Even if we change
the default init system for jessie, because we *must* support backwards
compatibility with sysvinit for upgrades,
101 - 147 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
