t...@debian.org wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
with this constant bickering and sniping. If you must do it, start the
GR and see how that goes. I even offer to second it just to help get
Can you help formulate? I do not feel my English skills are
up to that.
I'm sorry, I don't really have time to
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
- existing installations of older (pre-jessie) Debian may be
upgraded to our new standard init system systemd, but only
after the user has been suitably warned, e.g. via a debconf
propmpt at priority
On Jul 09, Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org wrote:
I think that it would be valuable for our users to keep the
non-default init system working on Jessie for those who do neither
intend nor need to switch to systemd.
I suggest less thinking and more coding then, because an updated
Quoting Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it):
On Jul 09, Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org wrote:
I think that it would be valuable for our users to keep the
non-default init system working on Jessie for those who do neither
intend nor need to switch to systemd.
I suggest less thinking and more
Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If they donât need any of the systemd features, I guess they donât need
any of its reverse dependencies either.
Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
I donât, but I want most KDE packages, so I
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 08:13 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
any of its reverse dependencies either.
Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
NM
Le vendredi 04 juillet 2014 à 15:09 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit :
But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
software to replace systemd?
If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
any of its reverse dependencies either.
So why do they
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
any of its reverse dependencies either.
Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
NM was working long time without systemd.
Don't spread wrong information.
On 07/04/2014 10:28 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
4) all init systems currently in Debian are supported in jessie;
We don't need a GR to support this option. Of course, all init systems
are supported, to the best of our efforts, and I don't see why someone
would refuse a patch. I haven't seen such
* Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr [140704 23:00]:
(I did find his comment funny --
actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty funny --, but I realise that this
is an international mailing list and that Austrian-Japanese humour is not
necessarily obvious to everyone.)
I'd suggest
The Wanderer dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:18:12PM -0400]:
It must work without systemd well enough to be able to cleanly reboot
the system from the GUI, after upgrading.
Anything beyond that is nice-to-have, but definitely NOT required.
I, for one, would be highly displeased if a
me:
(I did find his comment funny -- actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty
funny --, but I realise that this is an international mailing list and
that Austrian-Japanese humour is not necessarily obvious to everyone.)
Tollef Fog Heen:
Humour [...] does not work very well on large lists.
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
... particularly because I use rather fewer things than
many other people, and don't use most fancy GUI elements. (For example,
I don't have a graphical power button at all; I shut down by exiting
my window manager, logging out of the console where I
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014, at 16:59, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Besides, it’s not that the TC made a decision. Rather, the TC was
split, and the chairman threw in his weight. This is absolutely not
what I’d call a project(!) decision.
No! The TC has made the decision with full adherence to Debian
That will be my last contribution to this pointless discussion.
Le jeudi, 3 juillet 2014, 16.59:25 Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
or without systemd btw). Given that the technical committee has made
a decision which stayed unchallenged (so far), I've now come to
think that
No, there just has
In other news for Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:59:25PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser has
been seen typing:
No, there just has not been any challenge that met the form and
other requirements… and I am at a bit of loss at what to do here.
Besides, it’s not that the TC made a decision. Rather, the TC was
OdyX wrote:
all means, go for it. That said, as far as I remember, the latest GR
proposal [4] on this subject failed to gather the mandatory K seconds
though. For me, this indicates that not even K=5 DDs were interested in
I was not even aware of that proposal. This may also indicate lack
of,
The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
_instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what
systemd offers.
Abstracting away from your somewhat offensive choice of language, that's
a good point. As far as I'm aware, the only major distribution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 04:52 AM, Philip Hands wrote:
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
... particularly because I use rather fewer things than many other
people, and don't use most fancy GUI elements. (For example, I
don't have a graphical
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
Yeah. It has a chance.
It also has a chance to give people a big chunk of spare time back,
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
_instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what
systemd offers.
Abstracting away from your somewhat offensive choice of language, that's
a good point. As far as I'm aware, the
Dominik George dixit:
systemd, in its nature as an init system, starts what you tell it to
start. There is nothing that can prevent it from starting openntpd if
you want that. If you through a service file at it, or even an LSB
init script, then systemd has no choice but to start it.
No, this is
Hi Thorsten,
while I tend to basically acknowledge your points here, there is still one
thing you obviously did not get until now, if I followed along correctly.
For example, systemd has support for its own (S)NTP client, but also
supports xntpd (rudely leaving OpenNTPD out already). The commit
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:40:59PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
_instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what systemd
offers.
But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
(Long live the CoC - I am *so* happy to have it!! - hope someone
got
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
You know, backdoors are not only code vulnerabilities.
systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
Thorsten, you're too late. The
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Thorsten Glaser:
systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
Yeah. It has a chance.
Yes. (I was more or less referring to this
Hi,
Norbert Preining:
Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
*what* Seriously?!?
One of us seems to harbor a severe misconception or two about what kind
Steve McIntyre wrote:
with this constant bickering and sniping. If you must do it, start the
GR and see how that goes. I even offer to second it just to help get
Can you help formulate? I do not feel my English skills are
up to that.
Also, what options do we need?
1) systemd is the only init
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
So, let me get this straight:
You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after an
upgrade where any reasonable person would expect to reboot
This is Debian, not Windows or Red Hat, forced reboots are not
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014, at 16:42, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
So, let me get this straight:
You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after an
upgrade where any reasonable person would expect to reboot
This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 10:42 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
So, let me get this straight:
You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after
an upgrade where any reasonable
Hi,
Adam Borowski:
There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
forced reboots on a repeated basis, I don't like where this is going.
systemd and its components can re-exec themselves,
On Friday, July 04, 2014 17:28:05 Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Adam Borowski:
There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
forced reboots on a repeated basis, I don't like where this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 11:28 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Adam Borowski:
There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
forced reboots on a
On Jul 04, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
This part is precisely what I'm objecting to. I don't consider being
expected to reboot *in order to maintain existing functionality* after
an upgrade to be reasonable.
Tough luck for you then, I fear that this is a perception issue.
At the
* The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm, 2014-07-04, 12:00:
Zurg (Jessie+1),
Has that name actually been formalized in any way?
No. But no worries, if RT chooses a different name, we'll have a GR to
override them. :-P
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Matthias,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:02:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Norbert Preining:
Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
*what*
While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban,
Having had the pleasure to meet Norbert in person, I have no doubt that he
was joking when appealing to the CoC. (I did find his comment funny --
actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty funny --, but I realise that this
is an
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban,
Having had the pleasure to meet Norbert in person, I have no doubt that he
was joking when appealing to the CoC.
I have yet to find mr Preining funny in any of his mails sent to any of
the lists I
I have yet to find mr Preining funny in any of his mails sent to any of
the lists I read. Humour, except when accompanied with explicit tags of
HERE BE HUMOUR does not work very well on large lists.
Well, because I don't write WARNING HUMOUR COMING and then some
people don't get it bad
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
I [...] will try to avoid breaking stuff
I expect no less from a Debian Developer.
but it's also a use case we don't hit, so breakage there is less likely
to be seen by us. We'll do our best to fix it when reported, of course.
That is good to hear. It
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban, I would
like to ask you to consider taking a step back from this thread, and
evaluating whether such messages are actually contributing to bringing these
discussions to a conclusion.
Thanks for the
Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr writes:
I'll remind you that this thread started with systemd breaking my
system, and a systemd maintainer summarily closing my bug report. Not
once, but twice.
Because the bug was already fixed in a newer version of systemd. While
we're
also sprach Stephan Seitz stse+deb...@fsing.rootsland.net [2014-07-04 15:09
+0200]:
But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
software to replace systemd?
Because there are better ways to implement it, including more
granular approaches and less of a desktop focus. And
Folks,
Le jeudi, 3 juillet 2014, 14.20:24 Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
Isn't the proper solution to add blacklisting support to dpkg, then?
The proper solution is to stop trying to hide ourselves from to the fact
that some sort of systemd interfaces have been made unavoidable in
modern
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
The proper solution is to stop trying to hide ourselves from to the fact
that some sort of systemd interfaces have been made unavoidable in
modern desktop environments (fact which is rightfully reflected in our
Eh… you know… these are not all
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
A lot of Debian systems even run without dbus!
Yeah. So? systemd doesn't force you to run a dbus daemon.
No, there just has not been any challenge that met the form and
other requirements… and I am at a bit of loss at what to do here.
You get to do the same thing the
Didier, Hello.
The proper solution is to stop trying to hide ourselves from to the fact
that some sort of systemd interfaces have been made unavoidable in
modern desktop environments (fact which is rightfully reflected in our
dependencies tree).
Can we get over this now and start making
Alexander Pushkin alex904...@mail.ru writes:
For some of us there will never be an awesome Debian release that at
it's core contains systemd. It's core developers, Lennart Poettering and
Kay Sievers, work for a company that has multi-billion dollar contracts
with NSA. It is your choice to
Hi,
Alexander Pushkin:
It's core developers
*Its.
I think we can do without (quite unfounded, IMHO) insinuations that
systemd is somehow infected with an NSA-sponsored backdoor or two,
thank you very much.
Please respect our decision to stay away from systemd and still be Debian
users. If
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
If the NSA are going to hide back-doors in open source projects (a rather
dubious idea to start with, given how difficult it is and how much social
blowback there would be when such a thing was inevitably discovered), they
Hi,
Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de writes:
Please respect our decision to stay away from systemd and still be
Debian users. If possible, please, don't resist changes that make our
lives easier.
*Sigh*.
The problem is not that anybody resists such changes.
I disagree. People *do* in
On 03/07/14 22:50, David Weinehall wrote:
Why would the NSA take even the slightest risk of discovery
when they could put a backdoor in a driver for a piece of hardware that
has full access to your system?
Or on the firmware of your HDD/SDD:
http://s3.eurecom.fr/~zaddach/docs/Recon14_HDD.pdf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/03/2014 01:40 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
Can we get over this now and start making Jessie the most awesome
stable release we've ever prepared together?
To do that, it MUST work without systemd, if alone for
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
I generally dist-upgrade my primary computer to testing about once a
week, give or take, but I don't reboot it more often
Hi,
The Wanderer:
I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
We're talking about an upgrade from one release to the other here,
with many intrusive changes (not just systemd).
If you do that upgrade not in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/03/2014 11:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
I generally dist-upgrade
58 matches
Mail list logo
