The Wanderer wrote:
[...] and the proprietary[0] interfaces they seem to
use [...]
[...]
[0] Meaning approximately we create our own language and talk it to
ourselves, and anyone else who wants to talk to us has to learn our
language, not intending to imply undocumented or legally
Uoti Urpala preached with fire in his heart and wind in his head:
I'd say that mainly shows that systemd upstream has managed to develop
things forward. Creating and changing things involves decisions, and
there's no way to make everyone happy. And when old things are changed
there's bound to
Miroslaw,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Miroslaw Baran ba...@hell.pl wrote:
Uoti Urpala preached with fire in his heart and wind in his head:
Miroslaw,
please, do not troll. This list has enough flames and we don't need more.
Anecdotal evidence of some bugs in some software doesn't
brian m. carlson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:17:04PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
If you don't do development, and nobody sharing your views does either,
then there's a limit to the extent you can choose your direction just by
refusing to follow those that do develop things further. You
]] The Wanderer
If someone implementing a new alternative wanted to retain the other
tools with which systemd integrates, that person would have to match
their interfaces, which might limit the functionality the new
alternative could be able to provide - much as having to match the
sysvinit
Vincent Cheng vincentc1...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
As the recommended way to install systemd is using init= and not
installing systemd-sysv, maybe the
Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 10:45 +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
systemd being installed does not mean it will be used as init. The
package happens to contain a few tools the GNOME Shell needs, that is
all, to the best of my knowledge. It's a harmless dependency if you
don't use systemd, one
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 10:45 +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
systemd being installed does not mean it will be used as init. The
package happens to contain a few tools the GNOME Shell needs, that is
all, to the best of my knowledge. It's a harmless
On 22 July 2013 10:17, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 10:45 +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
systemd being installed does not mean it will be used as init. The
package happens to contain a few tools the GNOME Shell needs, that is
all, to the best of my
On 07/22/2013 02:52 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] The Wanderer
If someone implementing a new alternative wanted to retain the
other tools with which systemd integrates, that person would have
to match their interfaces, which might limit the functionality the
new alternative could be able to
On 21 July 2013 20:22, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
I'm saying that it looks to me as if the lock-in to systemd would be
even stronger than the lock-in to sysvinit, and might well extend to the
point of even making it harder to implement another new alternative in
the first place.
On 07/22/2013 08:48 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
On 21 July 2013 20:22, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
I'm saying that it looks to me as if the lock-in to systemd would
be even stronger than the lock-in to sysvinit, and might well
extend to the point of even making it harder to implement
Am 22.07.2013 11:17, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 10:45 +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
systemd being installed does not mean it will be used as init. The
package happens to contain a few tools the GNOME Shell needs, that is
all, to the best of my knowledge. It's a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
My concern was that the integrated nature of it would make it harder to
replace any one part, especially if desiring to extend rather than just
reimplement. Having it made clear that it's more compatible with being
brian m. carlson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:59:20AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Whether your argument was honest or not, I think it was a bad one. OK,
perhaps you have concerns about the philosophy behind systemd and where
that might take it in the future. Such philosophy issues are
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
Leaving aside fears about what upstream might decide to do at some point
(e.g. the make udev require systemd proposal), much of that objection
simply comes down to how difficult it looks like it would be to switch
*away* from systemd, once it becomes
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:17:04PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
brian m. carlson wrote:
Since Debian is always in need of developers and volunteers, it isn't
objectively reasonable to expect that forking a project will be
possible. One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
[I am almost certainly going to regret this.]
I hope so.
Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
difficult, at least as a social matter, even in the environment we have.
systemd et al., by virtue of
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:04:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
difficult, at least as a social matter, even in the environment we have.
systemd et al.,
On 07/21/2013 05:04 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
[I am almost certainly going to regret this.]
I hope so.
Please don't be a jerk.
Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
difficult, at least as a
2013/7/22 Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net:
We would be effectively locked in.
We are locked in sysvinit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
2013/7/22 Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net:
We would be effectively locked in.
We are locked in sysvinit.
Except we're not: both systemd and upstart support sysvinit scripts.
Which is why we can do a gradual migration, or even switch back and forth
❦ 21 juillet 2013 23:48 CEST, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net :
Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
difficult, at least as a social matter, even in the environment we have.
systemd et al., by virtue of the integration which is apparently one of
their
2013/7/22 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
2013/7/22 Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net:
We would be effectively locked in.
We are locked in sysvinit.
Except we're not: both systemd and upstart support sysvinit scripts.
Which is why we can do a gradual
The Wanderer wrote:
On 07/21/2013 05:04 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
difficult, at least as a social matter, even in the environment we
have. systemd et al.,
On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2013/7/22 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
We are locked in sysvinit.
Except we're not: both systemd and upstart support sysvinit
scripts. Which is why we can do a gradual migration, or even switch
back
On 07/21/2013 06:12 PM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
2013/7/22 Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net:
We would be effectively locked in.
We are locked in sysvinit.
Agreed, to an extent we are. And you can see how hard it's being to
migrate away from that, even once alternatives have been implemented.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:59:20AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Whether your argument was honest or not, I think it was a bad one. OK,
perhaps you have concerns about the philosophy behind systemd and where
that might take it in the future. Such philosophy issues are rather
subjective. But your
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 05:59:25PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 07/21/2013 05:04 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
[I am almost certainly going to regret this.]
I hope so.
Please don't be a jerk.
Making the switch away from
On 07/20/2013 07:39 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
So why do we even discuss popcon data here
Because John Paul Adrian Glaubitz started writing about it, and defended
strongly that it is be data we should consider...
He is currently alone defending that opinion.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
On Samstag, 20. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The problem isn't that OpenRC isn't fit. The problem is that *NONE* of
the projects are fitting *ALL* of our requirements. All of the 3
solutions have problems.
so, there is systemd and there is upstart. what is the 3rd solution?
After
Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 13:40 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
The problem isn't that OpenRC isn't fit. The problem is that *NONE* of
the projects are fitting *ALL* of our requirements.
What requirements are you talking about? Which requirements are not met
by systemd?
If this is about
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:27:58 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
If this is about kFreeBSD, it would be nice and all to share the init
system with these ports, but it should certainly not have an influence
on the choice of init system for the Linux ports.
Why?
Grüße
Marc
--
On Samstag, 20. Juli 2013, Marc Haber wrote:
Why?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00725.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I would *hope* a lot of Debian developers would do things like that, for
any of the options! There's no substitute for actually trying the
software and seeing how easy it is to use, how well it works, and how
difficult it
On 20 July 2013 08:17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:27:58 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
If this is about kFreeBSD, it would be nice and all to share the init
system with these ports, but it should certainly not have an influence
on the
(On my phone, I hate this ui, sorry for the CC Russ)
On Jul 19, 2013 5:30 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, both analysis are obviously flawed as this popcon data can't
really be interpreted that way as its an apple to
2013/7/20 Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org:
Yes. This. I was a pretty avid syatemd hater, but having used it for a
solid 6 months, I can't imagine using anything else. I find myself
installing systemd as one of the first things I do when I get a new install.
If you're laying down systemd
[I am almost certainly going to regret this.]
On 07/20/2013 12:52 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
(On my phone, I hate this ui, sorry for the CC Russ)
On Jul 19, 2013 5:30 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I would *hope* a lot of Debian developers would do things like
that, for any of
On 07/19/2013 08:32 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/18/2013 09:45 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
If OpenRC isn't what we need (I still believe it does address a bunch of
problems and that the fact it can work for non-Linux port is a key
factor), then I'd be for Upstart. I do maintain my
On Thu, July 18, 2013 09:15, Thomas Goirand wrote:
- Fast startup
I thought everyone claimed (including systemd supporters) that this was
a teenager side effect which we didn't care much about.
Definitely not. Debian should care about fast boot a lot. Rebooting a
system, planned or not, is
]] Russ Allbery
The upstart package takes over process 1, so 100% of the systems with the
upstart package installed are using it as process 1. The same is true of
systemd-sysv, of course.
This isn't necessarily true. I used to run my laptop with systemd as
pid 1 and the upstart package
On 07/19/2013 10:15 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
Even if that was truth (Russ showed it might not), I don't see how this
is a counter argument to what I wrote. Besides this, this is not a
voting system: if we were governed only by a majority
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:50:36AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Thu, July 18, 2013 09:15, Thomas Goirand wrote:
- Fast startup
I thought everyone claimed (including systemd supporters) that this was
a teenager side effect which we didn't care much about.
Definitely not. Debian
Hi William,
William Giokas 1007...@gmail.com writes:
* 'Graphical UI: yes': Nope.
side note: it is from
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
Cheers,
Benda
pgpLYHGdS_e5Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
2013/7/19 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
On 07/19/2013 02:55 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe the equivalent systemd package to the upstart package is the
systemd-sysv package, so 174 rather than 1604 is perhaps the better
number
On 07/19/2013 06:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
sysvinit148865 99.83%
The reason might be that systemd does not conflict with sysvinit :).
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin -
On 07/19/2013 06:43 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 05:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We try to have technical reasoning, which is (one of) the reason this
list exists. This has nothing to do with voting.
If we actually did, the choice would have already been made for systemd
On Friday, July 19, 2013 06:35:48 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
As the recommended way to install systemd is using init= and not
installing systemd-sysv, maybe the popcon vote count is the correct
metric?
Plus, systemd isn't pulled in
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, July 19, 2013 06:35:48 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
systemd is used regulardly on about 1200 popcon submiters, upstart
on about 600 (this is even less than 100 from 2013-07-04, but what
happened!).
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
sysvinit 148865 99.83%
The reason might be that systemd does not conflict with sysvinit :).
So are we playing word games now or trying to solve a problem? According to the
popcon
On 07/19/2013 05:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We try to have technical reasoning, which is (one of) the reason this
list exists. This has nothing to do with voting.
If we actually did, the choice would have already been made for systemd
long time ago. Don't make yourself any illusions. It has
On 07/19/2013 07:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
sysvinit148865 99.83%
The reason might be that systemd does not conflict with sysvinit :).
So are we playing word games now
David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, both analysis are obviously flawed as this popcon data can't
really be interpreted that way as its an apple to banana comparison and
way too few datapoints, but everyone likes misinterpret statistics as
proven by this thread – and
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:48 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 07:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
sysvinit148865 99.83%
The
Dear Russ,
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I would *hope* a lot of Debian developers would do things like that,
for any of the options! There's no substitute for actually trying the
software and seeing how easy it is to use, how well it works, and how
difficult it is to support. There
On 07/19/2013 05:25 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 10:15 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
Even if that was truth (Russ showed it might not), I don't see how this
is a counter argument to what I wrote. Besides this, this is
On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
As the recommended way to install systemd is using init= and not
installing systemd-sysv, maybe the popcon vote count is the correct
metric?
Plus, systemd isn't pulled in by anything else which means when it's
there it's there because it was
Dear all,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
Says the guy who posted this to back up his chain of arguments:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
Excuse me for hijacking this reply.
On the wiki page.
I revised it into present form last
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
On Friday, July 19, 2013 06:35:48 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The data that we have now is the actual data and it shows upstart
isn't very popular.
sysvinit 148865 99.83%
Neither is systemd. The numbers for either are small enough
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:43:33PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
But we have also gnome-settings-daemon in experimental which depends without
an alternative on it. Now, if you look really close on the popcon data for
systemd you see that in March 2013 there is a plateau reached for systemd,
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:12 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
As the recommended way to install systemd is using init= and not
installing systemd-sysv, maybe the popcon vote count is the correct
metric?
Plus,
Le Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 07:14:31PM -0700, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
If/when gnome-shell 3.8 hits unstable and systemd gets forced on end
users as well...I dare say that the general outcry here on
debian-devel would make the past network-manager related threads look
tame in comparison. I offer
On 07/20/2013 12:43 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 05:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We try to have technical reasoning, which is (one of) the reason this
list exists. This has nothing to do with voting.
If we actually did, the choice would have already been made for
On 07/18/2013 01:29 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Reliable, low-maintenance system startup (no races / ordering bugs)
Could you point at these bugs?
- Reliable service supervision
Have you tried using rc-status? Or do you mean restarting crashed daemons?
- Fast startup
I thought everyone
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:15:12PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/18/2013 01:29 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Reliable, low-maintenance system startup (no races / ordering bugs)
Could you point at these bugs?
- Reliable service supervision
Have you tried using rc-status? Or do you
2013/7/18 William Giokas 1007...@gmail.com:
Having not used OpenRC, I have no comment on the real world advantages
or disadvantages of either init system
I'm a user of Gentoo and Debian.
I do not care of what to type: 'emerge -avuND world' or 'apt-get upgrade'
I do not care of which init
On 07/18/2013 04:30 PM, William Giokas wrote:
If you're going to cite something showing that OpenRC is good, please
don't show something that is so obviously biased it's not even funny
anymore.
I agree that this wiki page is obviously biased, and that is to be
expected at the wiki.gentoo.org
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 06:33:08PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It's about the same on the other side when Lennart tells about Systemd
debunking myths.
If this wasn't about systemd, I'd ask for some arguments here.
But as all systemd discussions are full of FUD anyway, it won't help much
here.
On 07/18/2013 09:15 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
friendly upstreamyes no NO YES
Really? You put something like this in a technical comparison chart?
And systemd has a graphical user interface?
Wow, I don't even...
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
On 07/18/2013 09:15 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
friendly upstream yes no NO YES
Really? You put something like this in a technical comparison chart?
A
On 07/18/2013 01:48 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
A friendly upstream *is* important in a comparsion chart. Working with
an unfriendly, or even hostile upstream is not something you want to
have in a core component of an operating system.
Friendliness has nothing to do with accepting every single
On 18/07/13 12:12, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
And systemd has a graphical user interface?
Yes, systemadm(1) in systemd-ui. It was recently split into a separate
(upstream and Debian source) package. It's hardly comprehensive, but it
exists.
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 07/18/2013 07:00 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 06:33:08PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It's about the same on the other side when Lennart tells about Systemd
debunking myths.
I'd ask for some arguments here.
This has already been discussed. You can look in the
On 07/18/2013 02:28 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 18/07/13 12:12, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
And systemd has a graphical user interface?
Yes, systemadm(1) in systemd-ui. It was recently split into a separate
(upstream and Debian source) package. It's hardly comprehensive, but it
exists.
On 07/18/2013 07:12 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/18/2013 09:15 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
friendly upstream yes no NO YES
Really? You put something like this in a technical comparison chart?
I wasn't
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:50:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
friendly upstream yes no NO YES
Really? You put something like this in a technical comparison chart?
I wasn't the one who wrote it.
You linked
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:47:27PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It's about the same on the other side when Lennart tells about Systemd
debunking myths.
I'd ask for some arguments here.
This has already been discussed. You can look in the archive.
I don't think so.
--
WBR, wRAR
--
To
On 07/18/2013 08:19 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/18/2013 01:48 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
A friendly upstream *is* important in a comparsion chart. Working
with an unfriendly, or even hostile upstream is not something you
want to have in a core component of an operating system.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:15:12PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/18/2013 01:29 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Reliable, low-maintenance system startup (no races / ordering bugs)
Could you point at these bugs?
No.
Look, Thomas, you asked what the goals of event-based init systems are, and
On 07/18/2013 08:21 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
But unless you've only ever used Debian on systems with a flat
partition:filesystem structure, with no network filesystem mounts, no
LVM/RAID/LUKS, and no networks more complicated than a single interface,
you've either been affected by these race
Thomas Goirand zigo at debian.org writes:
You have to define what problem we are trying to solve. And this still
hasn't been defined yet in this list.
What for?
Seriously. There are a whole lot of features in systemd which I, for one, do
NOT want to do without any longer.
Decent process
On 07/19/2013 02:21 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
But unless you've only ever used Debian on systems with a flat
partition:filesystem structure, with no network filesystem mounts, no
LVM/RAID/LUKS, and no networks more complicated than a single interface,
you've either been affected by these race
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:45:21AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
So that brings me to ask: do you have an idea of how much work it would
be to have Upstart ported to kFreeBSD or Hurd (even if that would mean
loosing some of the functionality (obviously cgroups comes to mind))?
As for cgroups,
❦ 18 juillet 2013 21:45 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
So that brings me to ask: do you have an idea of how much work it would
be to have Upstart ported to kFreeBSD or Hurd (even if that would mean
loosing some of the functionality (obviously cgroups comes to mind))?
Upstart doesn't
Thomas Goirand (2013-07-19):
So that brings me to ask: do you have an idea of how much work it would
be to have Upstart ported to kFreeBSD or Hurd (even if that would mean
loosing some of the functionality (obviously cgroups comes to mind))?
Surely, you could have tried “porting upstart
On 18 July 2013 21:14, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote:
Thomas Goirand (2013-07-19):
So that brings me to ask: do you have an idea of how much work it would
be to have Upstart ported to kFreeBSD or Hurd (even if that would mean
loosing some of the functionality (obviously cgroups comes
On 07/18/2013 09:45 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
If OpenRC isn't what we need (I still believe it does address a bunch of
problems and that the fact it can work for non-Linux port is a key
factor), then I'd be for Upstart. I do maintain my packages so that they
work for both Ubuntu and Debian,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=upstart
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=systemd
Currently 64 counted installations for upstart versus 1604 counted
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz (2013-07-19):
On a sidenote: Anyone can explain what could probably have caused this
sharp drop in installations? Were there any significant problems with
the current version of upstart in Debian?
Probably that?
On 07/19/2013 02:55 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe the equivalent systemd package to the upstart package is the
systemd-sysv package, so 174 rather than 1604 is perhaps the better number
to use.
I'm not sure whether I can follow. I am using systemd on both my desktop
and my laptop and
2013/7/19 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=upstart
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=systemd
Currently 64 counted installations
Matthias Klumpp m...@debian.org writes:
2013/7/19 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=upstart
Russ Allbery wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=upstart
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=systemd
Currently 64 counted installations for upstart
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
On 07/19/2013 02:55 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe the equivalent systemd package to the upstart package is the
systemd-sysv package, so 174 rather than 1604 is perhaps the better
number to use.
I'm not sure whether I can
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:06:27PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:25:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
- using the same infrastructure, it's also possible to
mount /etc in the initramfs so that you can
On 19/07/13 11:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
I didn't know about the init= method and was assuming the systemd-sysv
method. Anyway, my point is that I suspect the vast majority of the
systems with the systemd package installed are not actually using it as
process 1.
The upstart package takes
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:44:21AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
My most recent experience with PulseAudio came when I noticed that WoW
(run through Wine) was producing crackling, stuttering sound again; this
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:43:32 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Some older versions prior 1.0.x were broken or had exposed bugs in ALSA
drivers which needed to be fixed. These days, however, PulseAudio is
rock-stable.
It usually breaks only for people who
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:09:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
What I find rude is that a minority of idiots is taking the project
hostage of their ridiculous demands, preventing a quick switch to a
decent init systems, for reasons that are anything but technical.
Once more, I find
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
