Hi,
I really didn't want to write again in this thread (we did write too
much already, and the wiki should be the only medium to write about this
now...), though I can't just let John Paul Adrian Glaubitz write false
statements this way, and the wiki isn't a good medium for debunking
things that
On 11/11/2013 03:55 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:06:45AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated)
/usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years.
Outch! This bites hard. Maybe
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:06:45AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated)
/usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years.
Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the rc
package
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 02:45:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Note also that there's a *new* dependency problem (it wasn't there a
month ago...), with ifupdown, openssh-server plus another one (I can't
remember which one) which insist on having sysv-rc installed.
This is because
Additional arguments in favor of sysvinit:
* systemd and upstart lead to vendor lock-in; it will be complicated
later to return back or change to third option, as well to change from
first to second option
* I don't have a feeling that configuration can be very simpler than
shell scripts; there
On 11/08/2013 02:54 PM, Marko Randjelovic wrote:
Additional arguments in favor of sysvinit:
* systemd and upstart lead to vendor lock-in; it will be complicated
later to return back or change to third option, as well to change from
first to second option
Exactly what vendor would we be
This has now been discussed ad nauseam. Can we please stop posting about
this on -devel and let the tech-ctte work?
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 11/08/2013 02:54 PM, Marko Randjelovic wrote:
Additional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2013-10-25 17:04, Bastien beudart wrote:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known
ubuntu developers.
Correct. And five other members.
Isn't that biased?
Probably.
But even if the two people vote in one direction they
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd
be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at
least others can try
Hi Svante,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote:
Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html
I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we might get OpenRC
working on our ports, but some still
On 10/29/2013 03:57 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd
be nice if someone from the FTP master team
On 10/29/2013 06:53 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Hi Svante,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote:
Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html
I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we
* Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, 2013-10-25, 23:45:
OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this
is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice
if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least
others can try it.
Stefano Zacchiroli zack at debian.org writes:
*technical* decision is stupid. We really need to stop thinking that
every single member of the Debian project, just because he/she is a DD,
has a clue on every single technical matter that go on in the project.
This means that you just don’t
On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, 2013-10-25, 23:45:
OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month.
It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review
IANA ftp-master, but here's my quick review:
Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated)
/usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years.
Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the rc
package is why you saw this immediately! :)
Though that's
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:01:05PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Could this problem be explained. As long as they are in separate
directories and called explicitly does that matter?
Please see the nodejs vs node thread(s).
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org
: :' :
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros
of cons such as on LWN.net comments or any distro mailing list as many
are tired of systemd discussion and this wide ranging and much of the
Funny thing, the people who are undermining the Debian processes most loudly
are not even Debian Developers and thus they are not bound by them.
I am tired of this recurring flamewar, please stop it and let the tech-ctte do
their job. This is not a democracy any more, but the loudiestcracy.
O.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Let’s GR it.
No. I think I've already argued in the past against this idea on -devel,
possibly even in reply to you, Thorsten. As I can't find my post back
then, let me reiterate.
GRs should be used for societal and policy[*]
* Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi [2013-10-25 18:27]:
Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
charitable interpretation
Zack wrote:
Note that the *possibility* of taking technical decisions by GRs is
important, as it provides a balance of powers within the project, but we
should always do everything in our power to avoid doing that.
The decisions about the init system (both which are the supported
ones? and which
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On one hand, the belief that every DD is technically omniscient is the
reason why we still have so many pointlessly heated debates on this
mailing list. We would have way less of those if we let only people who
have a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:09:45PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
charitable interpretation
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
*technical* decision is stupid.
Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs.
systemd is *only* a technical question?
- Apparently both are
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:37:55PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
[...] non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for
ethical and philosophical reasons.
Uh-oh.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
*technical* decision is stupid.
Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013, at 16:37, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
*technical* decision is stupid.
Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart
Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to
have public
I recommend one more option, nicknamed rotten tomatoes,
that basically says that this GR should never have been proposed.
And even more so not listened to for a few reasons.
Little has changed since the last discussion that I feel came to a
reasonable current standing with an overview
systemd doing more is quite relevant for this decision as far as I
understand the discussion: unlike upstart, systemd is not just an init
replacement, but offers additional services like journald or logind.
I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros
of cons such as
On 10/26/2013 10:37 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
- Against systemd speaks that it's uncertain on whether there will be a
solution in the end for the non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think
Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons.
Admittedly I have no idea how the
On Oct 26, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
If neither Upstart or Systemd works for these non-Linux ports, then
there's OpenRC. Which is why I worked on it (and I did this, mainly
because of ethical and philosophical reasons as you put it). It
wouldn't hurt to have more help on it...
On 25/10/13 16:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
Fully supporting an init system means, among other things, writing or
generating native configuration files for that init system so that we can
take full (or at least fuller) advantage of its capabilities. We're
currently not doing that for anything
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:02:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
# systemd units on my laptop that are generated internally by systemd
# when it reads a sysvinit script (or LSB init script as it
# calls them)
% systemctl list-units | grep LSB | wc -l
That's only currently loaded units, i.e.
Christoph Anton Mitterer calestyo at scientia.net writes:
Let the war begin... ;)
I’m looking for someone to help me formulate a GR (since I know
I’m not good in formulating things that don’t offend anyone, and
in English) that states that Debian will support several init
systems (sysvinit with
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer calestyo at scientia.net writes:
Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org
: :' : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:19, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
I was just going to say the same. I don't think we need a full GR,
let's just shove it to tech-ctte, so they can make an informed decision.
We have the Tech CTTE for this type of decisions after
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:03:38 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer calestyo at scientia.net writes:
Let the war begin... ;)
I’m looking for someone to help me formulate a GR (since I know
I’m not good in formulating things that don’t offend anyone,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so
that we can move on).
Also, I’d
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:04:47PM +0200, Bastien beudart wrote:
Let's tech committee it :)
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers.
Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that
the decision
should be based
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
FINALLY decide what package
2013/10/25 Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can
Let's tech committee it :)
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers.
Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know
that the decision
should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest
to vote against their
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
so my
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but that is not in their
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
so my favourite GR outcome would just say that
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
Hurd kFreeBSD).
Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick
will need to be
Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are “one size fits all”,
nor do they intend to.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 18:09, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
Hurd kFreeBSD).
Not necessarily. We could also decide that
Thomas Goirand dixit:
and at turning
the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible
upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort,
Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have
to fork the project (or maintain a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
important on it?
Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompatabilities.
Cheers,
Paul
--
Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +]:
Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:31:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should
2013/10/25 Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org:
[...]
One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my
employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself
from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that
would be generally understood
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:42:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are
Colin Watson wrote:
I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing
subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my
vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring
relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
will keep supporting Upstart
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:15AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
will keep supporting
Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
Possible alternative choices for the GR would be:
- switch to systemd, do not permit any other init system
- switch to upstart, do not permit any other init system
- switch to systemd/upstart for
66 matches
Mail list logo
