date:20131024

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:22:50PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
 On 24 October 2013 07:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer 
 cales...@scientia.netwrote:
  In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
 
 This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
 
 dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, m68k,
 powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]
 
 So doesn't break Gnome where systemd is not supported.

But clearly shows this should be a Suggests: rather than a Depends:.
Depends is for an absolute relantionship, if five linux architectures
work fine without systemd, this means it is in no way a requirement.
Even a Recommends would be an abuse.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024080205.ga9...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 just recall the most epic flamewar in Debian's history),

Peh it wasn't *that* epic. I recall some truly awful ones in around 2006
to which the systemd ones pale in comparison. (Do not interpret this as
a challenge.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024080509.ga28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  And I for one heavily use vservers

It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
some old vserver instances at $WORK. I am astonished to see that you are
still using them. I didn't think they'd rebased onto anything more
recent than 2.6.20, I now see (with some dread) that you can get those
patches for 3.x series kernels.

However, it does mean I can file your systemd experience (singular) in
the I tried systemd in conjunction with $INSANESHIT and something
broke! bucket. Rube Goldberg indeed…


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024081123.gb28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant.  This is work
 that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
 being done.

I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
it should be their call as to whether this split must be done or not,
and how to do it if so.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024085459.gc28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

]] Steve Langasek 

 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
  2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
   [...]
   If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
   this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support 
   systemd.
 
   Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should 
   be
   separated out in the packaging.
  Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
  systemd (the init system).
 
 Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
 tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
 pushing an agenda.

I'm not sure how you get from «some component wants bits of what an init
system provides» to «let's disassemble the various components of the
init system and put the maintenance burden on the maintainers».

If GNOME decides they want the DBus interfaces from systemd, that does
not put any obligation on systemd or the systemd maintainers to split
those bits of functionality out of systemd.

Let me do a small detour here, because I think this is at the core of
the discussion: We're in this building an operating system, together. We
discuss, argue and bicker a lot, but the goal is to make a great, free
OS.  While some flexibility and choice is necessary, choice has a
cost. That cost comes in forms of more and harder maintenance, increased
complexity and more bugs.  Sometimes, we choose to take that cost
because we collectively decide that the benefits are worth it.  The
mail-transfer-agent is probably the best example here.  In other cases,
we don't allow choice.  We don't compile Debian for multiple libcs.  We
don't allow you to trivially swap out coreutils for busybox.  In this
particular case however, it's not even about switching out complete
components.  It's about taking some components out of one package and
making them work outside that context.

I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package.  You can't just take
one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing
engineering time at it as well.  However, it usually interfaces with the
rest of the world through well-defined interfaces.  If you believe that
the components implementing those interfaces should be swappable, you're
free to implement your own logind-a-like and we'll be happy to work with
you to make that work well and ensure the interfaces are stable.  Maybe
this will even make people on FreeBSD happier since they can then get
some of the benefits.  Alternatively, if somebody shows up and shows
long-term commitment to making logind work without systemd as init, gets
upstream buy-in and commits to ensuring that configuration works
long-term, we can talk.  What I'm not ok with it is having anybody
dictate that I should fork an upstream package against what I believe is
their good advice.

Having patches from Ubuntu is all nice and good, but as none of the
Debian maintainers are running in that configuration, nor is interested
in it, I think providing the appearance that we support or recommend
that configuration is dishonest and doing our users a disservice.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo2fyruk.fsf...@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Thibaut Paumard

Le 24/10/2013 10:54, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant.  This is work
 that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
 being done.
 
 I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
 it should be their call as to whether this split must be done or not,
 and how to do it if so.
 
 

Hi,

The split has already been done, hasn't it?  Merely installing the
systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
for that to happen.

So systemd may very well be recommended on the platforms on which it
works. It's not obvious how it could be an actual mandatory dependency
on some architecture but not on some other, though. The fact that GNOME
works without it on some architectures points in the direction of a
recommendation rather that dependency.

Kind regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers
 
 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
once other than via ssh or similar), not to speak about holding hostile
root.  vserver probably is too heavily in maintenance mode to pretend to
satisfy this anymore, but not catching all intentional attackers doesn't
mean not stopping unintentional breakage -- or even intentional but
not sophisticated enough intruders.

And xen and kvm are so inefficient memory wise it's not funny.  With
vserver, an empty container costs you only as much as the actual processes
need, while being able to get required memory immediately; with xen/kvm you
need to provision it with a large piece of slack so it can allocate things
before the baloon driver notices it must request more.  Multiply the slack
by the number of virtual machines and you end up with most of your memory
doing nothing.  Typical good practices with vserver include keeping every
service in a container on its own...

 I didn't think they'd rebased onto anything more recent than 2.6.20, I now
 see (with some dread) that you can get those patches for 3.x series kernels.

As every new major release adds more syscalls and refactoring to handle,
there's usually some slight lag: 3.10 kernels got ported only as of 3.10.9
(last update: 3.10.15) and 3.11 is not yet there.  Claiming it's stuck at a
six and a half years old kernel, though, suggests your information might be
a bit stale.

 However, it does mean I can file your systemd experience (singular) in
 the I tried systemd in conjunction with $INSANESHIT and something
 broke! bucket. Rube Goldberg indeed…

Debian's infrastructure relies pretty heavily on chroot, and even that
would require Rube Goldberg steps to have daemons talk between the host
and guest.  Needing this in the first place is wrong, as the whole point
of chroots/lxc/vserver/openvz/BSD jails/... is separation.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024095931.ga13...@angband.pl

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

]] Thibaut Paumard 

 The split has already been done, hasn't it?  Merely installing the
 systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
 machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
 for that to happen.

No, that's not a split.  That's a set of optional symlinks you can
install if you want to use systemd without reconfiguring your boot
loader.  The split Steve is asking for is moving logind out of systemd.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gd3ynv7@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On 24 October 2013 10:59, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers

 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
 even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
 once other than via ssh or similar), not to speak about holding hostile
 root.  vserver probably is too heavily in maintenance mode to pretend to
 satisfy this anymore, but not catching all intentional attackers doesn't
 mean not stopping unintentional breakage -- or even intentional but
 not sophisticated enough intruders.


http://linux.die.net/man/1/lxc-attach

$ sudo lxc-attach --name mycontainer -- login

if you wish to gain full login prompt. It has been around at least
since 2012. And you can have multiple ones

What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUiYf+GJ=e-OmXiRNA+nfvuw1vgGj=cghlb7qukfwav...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
 On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this
 personally
 
 (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it
 right, it takes
 over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on
 the same
 kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required
 actions.
 
 
 I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
 confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are
 currently hierarchical,

Sort of.

 I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory, different
 programs could be responsible for different parts of the hierarchy.

Yes, but there isn't a protocol for delegating that responsibility.

 If it is true, it is the thing we need to be prepared for, and so far
 I haven't seen any official information.
 
 
 This might also be relevant
 here: 
 http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign

This change is still under discussion.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382610937.6315.65.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
  
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
[...]

I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
mainline Linux now.  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know whether the
vzctl package is ready to work with mainline kernels.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382611609.6315.72.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:46:49AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
  lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.

 OpenVZ is in mainline Linux now.  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in
 Debian, as we can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know
 whether the vzctl package is ready to work with mainline kernels.

Sounds interesting.

It's been a while since I compared it with vserver, but as far as I know,
they're equivalent with just a different set of quirks.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024114743.ga15...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Philipp Kern


On 2013-10-23 22:22, Brian May wrote:

This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon [1] has:

dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]

So doesn't break Gnome where systemd is not supported.


GNOME is also likely not being tested on these other platforms.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/72592a5e9a0d3dfc675af7780e02a...@hub.kern.lc

[ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

Hello,
I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

git clone deb::mypackage

It does a faithful import of the package history from
snapshot.debian.org.  There is some agressive caching built-in, and a
bit of logic to rebuild the history graph from changelogs.  It is also
able to deal with most quirks in the upload history, like missing source
packages, missing .dsc files, and obsolete keys.

On the git side, the --depth option is supported.  Incremental imports
(both new releases and deepening the history) aren't yet, but the shared
cache helps rebuild branches faster.

It's available here https://github.com/g2p/git-deb and on PyPI.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52691e27.6070...@gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Marco d'Itri

On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:

 What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413

The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
be ready for jessie.

Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

On 24 October 2013 14:18, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

 git clone deb::mypackage

 It does a faithful import of the package history from
 snapshot.debian.org.  There is some agressive caching built-in, and a
 bit of logic to rebuild the history graph from changelogs.  It is also
 able to deal with most quirks in the upload history, like missing source
 packages, missing .dsc files, and obsolete keys.

 On the git side, the --depth option is supported.  Incremental imports
 (both new releases and deepening the history) aren't yet, but the shared
 cache helps rebuild branches faster.

 It's available here https://github.com/g2p/git-deb and on PyPI.

Is it compatible with Ian's dgit ?

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canbhluiaskvjt_x7qxw4qhwg2lrdxjd7fkvxqzz12ji2ctn...@mail.gmail.com

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Marvin Renich

* Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no [131024 05:39]:
 ]] Steve Langasek 
 
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
   2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on 
systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support 
systemd.
  
Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services 
should be
separated out in the packaging.
   Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
   systemd (the init system).
  
  Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
  tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
  pushing an agenda.
 
 I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package.  You can't just take
 one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing
 engineering time at it as well.

The issue is not whether or not systemd is a complete package, but that
the (current) Debian default desktop environment Depends on systemd.  If
systemd were already established as the _sole_ currently accepted init
system, there might be a reasonable argument for this.  However,
currently, systemd is *very* controversial, and it is extremely unclear
that it will become the default Debian init system.  The default Debian
DE should not require it.

I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd.  There are obviously others who
do not believe this.  If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system, regardless
of any technical merits.

...Marvin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024134948.gk8...@basil.wdw

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Norbert Preining

On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
 at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
 revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.

On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
 My apologies, I overreacted.


Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised
again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking
over again.

Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
(how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
are silence by
Code of Conduct

Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape -
say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet.

Brave New World

Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live  Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024140042.ge31...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Thomas Goirand

On 10/24/2013 04:51 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
 ]] Steve Langasek 
 
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
 [...]
 If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
 this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support 
 systemd.

 Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should 
 be
 separated out in the packaging.
 Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
 systemd (the init system).

 Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
 tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
 pushing an agenda.
 
 I'm not sure how you get from «some component wants bits of what an init
 system provides» to «let's disassemble the various components of the
 init system and put the maintenance burden on the maintainers».
 
 If GNOME decides they want the DBus interfaces from systemd, that does
 not put any obligation on systemd or the systemd maintainers to split
 those bits of functionality out of systemd.

We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
That's a very different picture... :(

 Let me do a small detour here, because I think this is at the core of
 the discussion: We're in this building an operating system, together. We
 discuss, argue and bicker a lot, but the goal is to make a great, free
 OS. While some flexibility and choice is necessary, choice has a
 cost. That cost comes in forms of more and harder maintenance, increased
 complexity and more bugs.  Sometimes, we choose to take that cost
 because we collectively decide that the benefits are worth it.  The
 mail-transfer-agent is probably the best example here.  In other cases,
 we don't allow choice.  We don't compile Debian for multiple libcs.  We
 don't allow you to trivially swap out coreutils for busybox.  In this
 particular case however, it's not even about switching out complete
 components.  It's about taking some components out of one package and
 making them work outside that context.

I get your point about the cost, and I agree with you that there is one
which we should keep in mind in this discussion. But IMO, your example
isn't working. It is correct that, currently, can't swap the coreutils
for busybox, or switch to another implementation of the libc. But we are
still allowed to choose between Linux, kFreeBSD, Hurd. And clang and GCC
can also be swapped (this last one is even a proposed release goal!). I
suppose you will agree that a kernel and an ISO C compiler are very
complex components.

Also, things like the the boot loader (syslinux, lilo, grub...), the GUI
login (kdm, gdm, xdm...), or the system logger (with even some remote
server syslogger available), have all for a long time, been
interchangeable very easily with just an apt-get install. It used to be
very simple and easy, and it should continue this way.

We're now being told that we wont be able to choose *anymore*. This last
word is the most important of them all: anymore. I (and AFAICT others
too) see this as a regression (and this has absolutely nothing to do
with the quality of the components of Systemd), and a possible way to be
locked-in.

Upstream authors are working in a way that either imposes some packaging
work to keep the modularity we used to have, or we're locked-in. This is
what made others (this means: not me) say that these upstream authors
have an agenda, using this fact to impose all components of Systemd.
Hopeful this is wrong, and it must be the case that they simply just
don't care, and believe that we should adopt all of these components
anyway, so it doesn't make sense to do things the old way (understand:
with anything that Systemd doesn't re-implement), because they think
that's the only way to have the features they want/need, and that
systemd is just better, so why should one even think about using
something else? I really don't think there's anything malicious or an
agenda here, to take over the Unix world, but that's effectively what
is (unfortunately) proposed.

At the end, if in Debian, there are ways so that we have all components
of systemd and Gnome work well together *and* retain the modularity we
used to have, I think we should go for it. And yes, to the extend of
feasibility, this is IMO up to the systemd and Gnome maintainers to not
introduce a regression where one (even if it's at the cost of loosing
some upstream functionality) doesn't loose the possibility to choose
components running on his system. Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not?
Or is there more to it? The more the answer is yes, it's becoming a lot
more complex than this, then the more we'd be locked-in.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


--
To

Re: OpenVZ (was: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Thomas Goirand

On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  And I for one heavily use vservers

 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
 [...]
 
 I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
 mainline Linux now.

Oh, I'm surprised! I thought it would never get in, since we had LXC.
Thanks for sharing this info. How much of it is in? All of it? Or just a
subset?

 You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
 can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then

What's that for?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52692bcc.1080...@debian.org

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

Le 24/10/2013 15:57, Dmitrijs Ledkovs a écrit :
 On 24 October 2013 14:18, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

 git clone deb::mypackage
 
 Is it compatible with Ian's dgit ?

I only know what dgit does from reading the source code.  dgit works
server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
base for new uploads.  It's useful as part of a maintainer's workflow.
My tool is useful to get a git view of any package, without waiting for
anyone to convert their repo.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52692b84.4020...@gmail.com

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
  My apologies, I overreacted.

 Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
 (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
 are silence by
   Code of Conduct
 
 Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

No.  But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.

Thanks Adam!
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 09:49 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:

 I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
 in order to force adoption of systemd.  There are obviously others who
 do not believe this.  If it is true, however, I would consider it
 sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
 eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system, regardless
 of any technical merits.

+1



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382625102.4928.41.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Scott Kitterman



Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no [131024 05:39]:
 ]] Steve Langasek 
 
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
   2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends
on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't
support systemd.
  
Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus
services should be
separated out in the packaging.
   Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
   systemd (the init system).
  
  Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should
not
  tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an
upstream
  pushing an agenda.
 
 I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package.  You can't just
take
 one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing
 engineering time at it as well.

The issue is not whether or not systemd is a complete package, but that
the (current) Debian default desktop environment Depends on systemd. 
If
systemd were already established as the _sole_ currently accepted init
system, there might be a reasonable argument for this.  However,
currently, systemd is *very* controversial, and it is extremely unclear
that it will become the default Debian init system.  The default Debian
DE should not require it.

I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd.  There are obviously others who
do not believe this.  If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system,
regardless
of any technical merits.

If your concern is about Debian's default DE depending on systemd, there is 
more than one way to solve that problem. 

Scott K


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/2fe2e373-0838-4b97-b533-b08b79b37...@email.android.com

Re: lxc / vserver / openvz (was: systemd flamage)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
 On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
 
  What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
 http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
 
 The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
 be ready for jessie.

If I read Ubuntu documentation correctly, you also need a large complex
apparmor policy to block sensitive /proc and /sys files from being messed
with by guest systems.  vserver does this internally based on its system
of capability bits.  It also censors misc syscalls; I can't seem to find
this part being done by lxc.

 Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
 use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.

As Ben Hutchings just told us, openvz has been merged upstream in 3.12. 
Interestingly, that bit (CONFIG_USER_NS) just happens to be the same thing
the blog post you pointed to described as the main problem that needs to
be solved for lxc.

Let's see how complete this is in practice.  So far, vserver works for me
but upstreamed stuff has obvious upsides.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024144435.ga19...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Steve McIntyre

Adrian wrote:

Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.

Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1vzmtw-0006yq...@mail.einval.com

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Uoti Urpala

Thomas Goirand wrote:
 We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
 modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
 reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
 re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
 That's a very different picture... :(

Your argument is complete nonsense. First, you're confusing modular
architecture with the existence of alternative implementations for every
part that can be freely switched without extra work. You've made similar
fallacious arguments before - see this post for my earlier reply to one:
https://lists.debian.org/1370925376.18948.33.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid

Second, the earlier discussion was in the context of using systemd as
the init system (NOT about trying to use some tools from systemd without
actually running systemd the init). Surely you won't claim that tools
depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init!



 Also, things like the the boot loader (syslinux, lilo, grub...), the GUI
 login (kdm, gdm, xdm...), or the system logger (with even some remote
 server syslogger available), have all for a long time, been
 interchangeable very easily with just an apt-get install. It used to be
 very simple and easy, and it should continue this way.
 
 We're now being told that we wont be able to choose *anymore*. This last
 word is the most important of them all: anymore. I (and AFAICT others
 too) see this as a regression (and this has absolutely nothing to do
 with the quality of the components of Systemd), and a possible way to be
 locked-in.

People have been locked in to using sysvinit as the init system on
Debian. If they are now locked in to using systemd, how is that a
regression? And what can they not choose *anymore*? Not that I'd value
arbitrary infrastructure choice for its own sake, but it seems that
every single part you listed as having been choosable before would
remain so with systemd as mandatory init.


 Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not?

Because the patch is not free to carry and guaranteed to keep working as
software is updated. In fact, it's already known that it does NOT keep
working without significant extra work.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382627323.1856.42.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid

Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Steve McIntyre

Hi folks,

This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.

This would mean:

 * Make the tasksel change stick

 * Tweak CD and installer builds:
   + change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
 of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
   + Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
   + Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1

Pros:

 * CD#1 will work again without size worries

 * Smaller, simpler desktop

 * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)

 * Does not depend on replacing init

Cons:
 * please fill in here

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2012/08/msg00055.html

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code 
 is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024154048.gb26...@einval.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:40 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
 On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
 
  What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
 http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
 
 The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
 be ready for jessie.
 
 Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
 use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.

Right, and wheezy userland should generally work with that kernel.
(It's not something that I've tested, though.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382628266.21018.39.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 10/24/2013 05:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Adrian wrote:

 Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
 there is that.
 
 Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
 AFAICS.

Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
was repeating what one of the proposals were. I my intention was not
to say systemd is going to happen, deal with it., but rather that
there are plans. Just take it with a grain of salt ;).

As for gnome-settings-daemon, the systemd dependency does not seem
to put any harm to the non-Linux kernels. Both kfreebsd-* and
hurd-i386 have the latest version of gnome-settings-daemon in
the archives.

I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
doesn't it?

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52693ccc.2090...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Please assume good faith

2013-10-24 Thread gregor herrmann

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:00:42 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
  at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
  revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.
 
 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
  My apologies, I overreacted.
 
 
 Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
 (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
 are silence by
   Code of Conduct

I have not understood Charles' mail as an attempt to silence critical
comments but to point out that insinuating malicious intentions is
inappropriate among peers.
 
 Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

No, IMO the way to ensure a civilised tone of communication in a
community and thereby keep it healthy.
 

Cheers,
gregor


-- 
 .''`.  Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer  -  http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT  SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Leonard Cohen: A Singer Must Die


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Paul Tagliamonte

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:29:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
 was repeating what one of the proposals were.

/
| Proposed Release Goals
| ==
| 
| The call for release goals has finished and we have received the
| following proposals:
\

This doesn't mean Debian wishes to do this, just ${DEVELOPERS} wish to
do this. It's perhaps more correct to say the *systemd* maintainers (I
assume they proposed it, which I support, FWIW), wish to add support in
the archive.


From inside this asbestos suit,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Ansgar Burchardt

Hi,

On 10/24/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 This would mean:
[...]
  * Tweak CD and installer builds:
+ change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
  of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
+ Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
+ Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1

How about renaming CD1 to GNOME CD1 and make the minimal installers
prompt which desktop to install? That is no longer having a default desktop.

The downside would be that one download link would no longer be enough.

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526945f9.2090...@debian.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Thibaut Paumard

Le 24/10/2013 17:08, Uoti Urpala a écrit :
 Surely you won't claim that tools
 depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init!

It's an argument for not depending on those tools, since we don't want
to (and can't) rely on systemd being the init system.

Regards.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread James McCoy

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
 Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
 ...
 Pros:

  * CD#1 will work again without size worries

  * Smaller, simpler desktop

  * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)

  * Does not depend on replacing init

This falsely implies that sticking with Gnome requires replacing the
init system.  The only requirement is that systemd is installed, not
that it is used as the init system.

I'm not objecting to the proposal, but the pros/cons should be accurate.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy james...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAFeRdpdk0mzeTNFkzCBMhFJ5qF_RuMeWE-6LS120W5mK=px...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

2013-10-24 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

On 24/10/13 at 15:18 +0200, Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:
 
 git clone deb::mypackage
 
 It does a faithful import of the package history from
 snapshot.debian.org.  There is some agressive caching built-in, and a
 bit of logic to rebuild the history graph from changelogs.  It is also
 able to deal with most quirks in the upload history, like missing source
 packages, missing .dsc files, and obsolete keys.
 
 On the git side, the --depth option is supported.  Incremental imports
 (both new releases and deepening the history) aren't yet, but the shared
 cache helps rebuild branches faster.
 
 It's available here https://github.com/g2p/git-deb and on PyPI.

That's really cool, and actually something I had on my TODO list (in the
Cool hacks I'll do when I have time section).

Do you think that it would be possible to turn it into a script part of
devscripts?

Some things I noticed:

1) $HOME/.cache/debsnap/ needs to be manually created

2) Trying to import simgrid, I don't know how to import
all versions.
It seems that:
git clone 'deb::simgrid?trust=DA196237023B3F4F' simgrid
fails with:
NameError: global name 'skip' is not defined

and if I do:
git clone 'deb::simgrid?skip=0;trust=DA196237023B3F4F' simgrid
it fails with
ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list

why does 'trust' imply skipping at least one version?

May I suggest that snapshot2deb would be a better, less generic name?

Thanks a lot,

Lucas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024162450.ga20...@xanadu.blop.info

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

Hi,

On 24/10/13 at 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Hi folks,
 
 This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
 discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
 day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
 feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
 
 This would mean:
 
  * Make the tasksel change stick
 
  * Tweak CD and installer builds:
+ change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
  of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
+ Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
+ Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1
 
 Pros:
 
  * CD#1 will work again without size worries
 
  * Smaller, simpler desktop
 
  * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
 
  * Does not depend on replacing init
 
 Cons:
  * please fill in here

What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?

That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

Even if not a strong requirement, I like the idea of an accessible
default Debian desktop.

Lucas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024163152.gb20...@xanadu.blop.info

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

On 24 October 2013 15:15, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Le 24/10/2013 15:57, Dmitrijs Ledkovs a écrit :
 On 24 October 2013 14:18, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

 git clone deb::mypackage

 Is it compatible with Ian's dgit ?

 I only know what dgit does from reading the source code.  dgit works
 server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
 a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
 base for new uploads.  It's useful as part of a maintainer's workflow.
 My tool is useful to get a git view of any package, without waiting for
 anyone to convert their repo.

Yes, sure. But it starts off a repository by taking the latest .dsc
file and generating a commit out of it.
The cool thing about how it generates the commit, is that it's
reproducible and generates stable SHA-1 id by setting GIT time
variables  author variables from the .dsc.
Such that it doesn't matter who/where/when runs the import as the
commit tree / commit id will be the same (well sans parenting
information, but that could be easily fixed with graft points)

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUgL7seZVFZV867JCLf05s5EkfPZRFS4KpWsKWfp1-h=g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:05 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
 there is that.
 
 Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
 AFAICS.

I just wondered... when and how is this going to be decided? I mean,
whether systemd will become default or not.


I mean the current boot system has several issues which cannot be easily
solved there (what's most importantly for me is
https://wiki.debian.org/AdvancedStartupShutdownWithMultilayeredBlockDevices).
This is probably not only the fault of sysvinit but also the
initramfs-scripts/hooks of some packages,... and systemd doesn't fix all
these AFAIK, but I guess it would be easier there.



Anyway,... at some point some decision has probably to be made what
Debian will do (per default)... when and how?


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382631614.6907.68.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

 What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
 That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
 rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
 unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
 classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
disappears.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382632711.4928.61.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

On 24 October 2013 17:38, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

 What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?

 That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
 rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
 unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
 classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

 An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
 disappears.



I thought it was _back in_ 3.8..
E.g. see Classic at
https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.8/

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUgTSrUDN3v8zBsp8=wh0t283R=bjabbsh0_senamqx...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Zlatan Todoric

But then again you have Flashback mode [0].

And just bashing GNOME DE for systemd and GNOME Classic
is not good enough point because probably the largest user base
of Debian user use GNOME.

This comment should not be seen as pro-GNOME as XFCE is
also decent DE which I also admire. Also I have question - the
last time I checked XFCE it had a lot of GNOME dependencies.
Is this still a true?

Cheers,

zlatan


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

  What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
  That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
  rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
  unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
  classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

 An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
 disappears.



 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382632711.4928.61.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se




-- 
Please while sending me text documents pay attention that they are by ISO
standard that is in .odt format (For sending other types of documents
please also refer to ISO/Open standars).
Its not the COST, its the VALUE!

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Zlatan Todoric

Sorry for not setting link to [0]

Here it is https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeFlashback


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Zlatan Todoric zlatan.todo...@gmail.comwrote:

 But then again you have Flashback mode [0].

 And just bashing GNOME DE for systemd and GNOME Classic
 is not good enough point because probably the largest user base
 of Debian user use GNOME.

 This comment should not be seen as pro-GNOME as XFCE is
 also decent DE which I also admire. Also I have question - the
 last time I checked XFCE it had a lot of GNOME dependencies.
 Is this still a true?

 Cheers,

 zlatan


 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Svante Signell 
 svante.sign...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

  What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
  That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
  rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
  unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
  classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

 An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
 disappears.



 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382632711.4928.61.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se




 --
 Please while sending me text documents pay attention that they are by ISO
 standard that is in .odt format (For sending other types of documents
 please also refer to ISO/Open standars).
 Its not the COST, its the VALUE!




-- 
Please while sending me text documents pay attention that they are by ISO
standard that is in .odt format (For sending other types of documents
please also refer to ISO/Open standars).
Its not the COST, its the VALUE!

Re: OpenVZ (was: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:16 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
 On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
  On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers
 
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
  lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
  [...]
  
  I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
  mainline Linux now.
 
 Oh, I'm surprised! I thought it would never get in, since we had LXC.

The mainline implementation of containers, which is made up of multiple
types of control groups and namespaces, supports both LXC and OpenVZ
(and Google's resource control, and systemd-nspawn, and yet other
tools).

 Thanks for sharing this info. How much of it is in? All of it? Or just a
 subset?

James Bottomley of Parallels talked about this in Edinburgh and said
everything was in by 3.9.

  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
  can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then
 
 What's that for?

User namespaces, i.e. user IDs and capabilities (the privileges that
root normally has) in a container are distinguished from those in the
outer system.  This is essential for virtual private servers.

Every filesystem implementation needs to make this distinction and not
all of them were converted to do so before 3.12.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Serge Hallyn

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
  
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
 even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
 once other than via ssh or similar),

lxc-attach does that and fully works with recent kernels.

 not to speak about holding hostile
 root.

3.12 has full user namespace support which gets us about as far as we'll
ever get.

-serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024164251.GA2226@ac100

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
  Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?
 
 No.  But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.

Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users.

And since it seems to get more and more a system for the lowest end of
end-users, no longer usable by power-users (whatever that is),... and
since it causes quite often such troubles like this now with systemd...
people start even to think whether it should be removed from Debian. No
big surprise, I guess.


I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
GNOME deals with some critical things...


Of course people should keep a respectful tone, though, and especially
correctly differentiate between GNOME upstream (causing all this mess)
and the Debian GNOME maintainers (usually having to live with it and
trying to make the best out of it).


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382632414.6907.76.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
  at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
  revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.

 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
  My apologies, I overreacted.

 Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised
 again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking
 over again.

 Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
 (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
 are silence by
   Code of Conduct

 Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

 This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape -
 say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet.

 Brave New World

Do you really have nothing better to contribute to this discussion than
complaining about people being civil to each other?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 24 oct 13, 16:40:48, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Hi folks,
 
 This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
 discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
 day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
 feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
 
 This would mean:
 
  * Make the tasksel change stick
 
  * Tweak CD and installer builds:
+ change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
  of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
+ Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
+ Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1

Would LXDE still fit on the same CD? I'm guessing yes, but I'd rather 
have it explicit.

Thanks,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727620: ITP: dh-virtualenv -- Wrap build python packages using virtualenv

2013-10-24 Thread Jyrki Pulliainen

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jyrki Pulliainen jy...@dywypi.org

* Package name: dh-virtualenv
  Version : 0.5
  Upstream Author : Jyrki Pulliainen jy...@spotify.com
* URL : http://www.github.com/spotify/dh-virtualenv
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: Python, Perl
  Description : Wrap  build python packages using virtualenv

This package provides a dh sequencer that helps you to deploy your
virtualenv wrapped installation inside a Debian package.

The package is developed at Spotify and we use it to package certain
services (like sentry) internally. Idea of the package is to combine
the freshness of Python Package Index to the feautres provided by
Debian packages.

More info can be found in blog post:
http://labs.spotify.com/2013/10/10/packaging-in-your-packaging-dh-virtualenv/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024164350.26961.19735.report...@dywypi.org

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

On 24/10/13 at 17:40 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
 On 24 October 2013 17:38, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
 
  What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
  That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
  rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
  unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
  classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
 
  An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
  disappears.
 
 
 
 I thought it was _back in_ 3.8..
 E.g. see Classic at
 https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.8/

That's a set of gnome-shell extensions that reproduce the look  feel of
GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 classic/fallback mode, not a separate window
manager.

As a personal data point, I was using GNOME3 classic mode, and I've
switched to using GNOME 3.8 with some of those extensions, and I'm very
happy with the result.

Lucas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024165010.ga29...@xanadu.blop.info

Re: lxc / vserver / openvz (was: systemd flamage)

2013-10-24 Thread Serge Hallyn

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
  On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
  
   What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
  http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
  
  The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
  be ready for jessie.
 
 If I read Ubuntu documentation correctly, you also need a large complex
 apparmor policy to block sensitive /proc and /sys files from being messed
 with by guest systems.  vserver does this internally based on its system
 of capability bits.  It also censors misc syscalls; I can't seem to find
 this part being done by lxc.
 
  Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
  use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.
 
 As Ben Hutchings just told us, openvz has been merged upstream in 3.12. 

The openvz and container communities worked together on the kernel
features.  vzctl has been updated to use the kernel features that were
upstream-acceptable.

So 'openvz has been merged upstream' is technically false, as it implies
that the patches as they stood were merged.  But openvz developers
played a huge part in what made it upstream.

-serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024165316.GB2226@ac100

GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]

2013-10-24 Thread Paul Tagliamonte

[Another new topic, sorry -develites]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
  What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
  
  That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
  rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
  unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
  classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
 
 An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
 disappears.

What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this sytemd
stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of systemd like
Ubuntu?

I know GNOME is fairly sane, I can't imagine they'd break *BSD like
that.

Cheers,
  T

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Wolodja Wentland

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 18:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
 On 10/24/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
  This would mean:
 [...]
   * Tweak CD and installer builds:
 + change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
   of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
 + Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
 + Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1
 
 How about renaming CD1 to GNOME CD1 and make the minimal installers
 prompt which desktop to install? That is no longer having a default desktop.
 
 The downside would be that one download link would no longer be enough.

I think that making the choice of the desktop environment explicit by either
prompting the user during the install (netinst) or by offering multiple
explicitly named images will actually make it easier for some users.

We get asked every now and then in #debian about the procedure to install
different desktop environments and it is hard for some users to grasp that
they have to make this choice in the boot menu and not during the software
selection step.

Another thing I like about it is that it renders headlines such as Debian
switches to XFCE, Gnome3 is officially horrible pointless as we simply state
that *all* of them are supported.
-- 
Wolodja deb...@babilen5.org

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Neil Williams

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:40:48 +0100
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:

 This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
 discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
 day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
 feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.

I've been using XFCE from unstable for over a year now, I strongly
recommend this environment as the default desktop for Debian.

Maybe make the GNOME option more visible in DI rather than a submenu
off the Advanced Install options.

  * Make the tasksel change stick
 
  * Tweak CD and installer builds:
+ change what happens with no desktop selected to use xfce instead
  of Gnome (netinst, DVD, BD etc.)
+ Add an explicitly-named Gnome CD#1
+ Remove the explicitly-named XFCE CD#1

 
 Pros:
 
  * CD#1 will work again without size worries
 
  * Smaller, simpler desktop
 
  * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
 
  * Does not depend on replacing init

   * Remove the need for 3D acceleration for the default desktop

   * A lot of applications are not ready for GTK3 or integration with
 the Gnome shell, including a lot of peripheral GNOME apps or
 ex-GNOME apps.

 Cons:
  * please fill in here

   * The XFCE goodies packages need some love. (I may even have some
 time for this - not right away though.)


-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Neil Williams

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:31:52 +0200
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote:

 On 24/10/13 at 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
  This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
  little discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too
  late in the day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather
  more time, I feel. Let's change the default desktop for
  installation to xfce.
  Cons:
   * please fill in here
 
 What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
 That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
 rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
 unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
 classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
 
 Even if not a strong requirement, I like the idea of an accessible
 default Debian desktop.

Most of the apps used on top of GNOME will continue to work with XFCE,
it's not as if the underlying libraries are changing. If anything, it's
*less* work to get such apps working with XFCE than it will be
migrating to full GNOME integration.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Samuel Thibault

Hello,

Please keep debian-accessibility in Cc for accessibility matters,
otherwise concerned people won't be able to provide information :)

Neil Williams, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 18:08:56 +0100, a écrit :
 On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:31:52 +0200
 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote:
 
  On 24/10/13 at 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
   This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
   little discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too
   late in the day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather
   more time, I feel. Let's change the default desktop for
   installation to xfce.
   Cons:
* please fill in here
  
  What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
  
  That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
  rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
  unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
  classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
  
  Even if not a strong requirement, I like the idea of an accessible
  default Debian desktop.
 
 Most of the apps used on top of GNOME will continue to work with XFCE,
 it's not as if the underlying libraries are changing. If anything, it's
 *less* work to get such apps working with XFCE than it will be
 migrating to full GNOME integration.

Well, if the desktop itself, i.e. what is used to start applications, is
not accessible, one can't start applications, be they accessible or not
:)

Samuel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20131024171549.gc5...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Wolodja Wentland

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
 discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
 day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
 feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.

Do we really need a default desktop?

The only arguments in favour of it I can think of is that it spares users to
make an informed decision (which might be overwhelming to a user new to Linux)
and that the content of CD2 depends on it. (thanks ansgar)

I understand that the both of these are good arguments, but maybe solutions
can be found for both. One idea would be the design of better download pages
[0] that provide minimal information about the desktop environments like a
picture of the desktop and a link to the upstream project. Not sure what to do
with the CD sets though.

[0] Work on making the download pages easier to navigate is long overdue anyway
-- 
Wolodja deb...@babilen5.org

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]

2013-10-24 Thread Hashem Nasarat

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

GNOME can run on BSD. This page documents the procedure done by one
user. https://wiki.gnome.org/TingweiLan/FreeBSD

On 10/24/2013 01:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
 [Another new topic, sorry -develites]
 
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
 What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
 That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've
 heard rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell
 has some unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem
 since GNOME classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
 
 An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic
 mode disappears.
 
 What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this
 sytemd stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of
 systemd like Ubuntu?
 
 I know GNOME is fairly sane, I can't imagine they'd break *BSD
 like that.
 
 Cheers, T
 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=mi06
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695482.4020...@riseup.net

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

Le 24/10/2013 18:24, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
 On 24/10/13 at 15:18 +0200, Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

 git clone deb::mypackage

 It does a faithful import of the package history from
 snapshot.debian.org.  There is some agressive caching built-in, and a
 bit of logic to rebuild the history graph from changelogs.  It is also
 able to deal with most quirks in the upload history, like missing source
 packages, missing .dsc files, and obsolete keys.

 On the git side, the --depth option is supported.  Incremental imports
 (both new releases and deepening the history) aren't yet, but the shared
 cache helps rebuild branches faster.

 It's available here https://github.com/g2p/git-deb and on PyPI.
 
 That's really cool, and actually something I had on my TODO list (in the
 Cool hacks I'll do when I have time section).
 
 Do you think that it would be possible to turn it into a script part of
 devscripts?

This is very new, and I may break compatibility in a few places, but I'd
be happy to get this into Debian (a sponsored upload would also work).
Possible future breakage: dealing with duplicate filenames[1] could
require changes in the cache layout, and I might introduce upstream
branches.
If someone could tell me that the sdo database doesn't contain
conflicting hashes for an orig archive, I'd be grateful, because
otherwise upstream branches will become complicated.

 Some things I noticed:
 
 1) $HOME/.cache/debsnap/ needs to be manually created

Oops, fixed

 2) Trying to import simgrid, I don't know how to import
 all versions.
 It seems that:
 git clone 'deb::simgrid?trust=DA196237023B3F4F' simgrid
 fails with:
 NameError: global name 'skip' is not defined

Fixed as well.  I have just introduced the trust option.  I'll try to
add some CI to catch this sort of thing.

 May I suggest that snapshot2deb would be a better, less generic name?
 
 Thanks a lot,
 
 Lucas

[1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/file/4.17-5etch2/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695582.3030...@gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Serge Hallyn

Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
 On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 
  * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
  (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
  over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
  kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.
 
 
 I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
 confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are currently
 hierarchical, I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory,
 different programs could be responsible for different parts of
 the hierarchy.

It currently can't prevent you from just mounting the cgroupfs and
working with it.  One of the justifications presented at plumbers for
wanting to do this was that changes to a subtree you control can
affect other tasks.  But it was agreed that that was actually only
for realtime (?) cgroup and that it is a bug which must be fixed.

In any case, google has released lmctfy
(https://github.com/google/lmctfy/) as an alternative cgroup manager
which is actually quite nice, and which does support delegation.  Based
on that I intend to implement a nestable manager.  By nestable I mean
that it will create a unix socket over which requests can be made.
So I can create a container and bind-mount that unix socket into the
container.  Then a container copy of the same cgroup manager, finding
it can't mount cgroups but the device socket exists, makes requests
over that socket.  If it is in cgroup /c1, and requests creation of
socket c2, the host's manager will create /c1/c2.  Since we have a
unix socket we can check the caller's credentials, it's access(2)
rights to the cgroups it wants to manage as well as the tasks it is
wanting to move.

(And if a container is created inside that container, it can bind-mount
the same socket, start another manager, and nesting should just work)

I've played enough to verify that all the pieces we need are there.  I
just haven't had the time to write it, and I need to decide whether/how
to base on / integrate with lmctfy.

[ And if anyone else wants to write this, please be my guest :)  I just
want nesting as described above ]

-serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024172511.GA21543@ac100

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Wookey

+++ Neil Williams [2013-10-24 18:06 +0100]:
 On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:40:48 +0100
 Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
 
  This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
  discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
  day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
  feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
 
 I've been using XFCE from unstable for over a year now, I strongly
 recommend this environment as the default desktop for Debian.

I've been using it for about 9 years on most of my machines 
(desktop/laptop/netbook/settop-box), and exclusively for the last 7
years. It works well (better now than ~9 years ago :-) and supports a
range of configurations (focus-follows-mouse, click-to-focus, top
panel/bottom panel/autoraise panel, raise-on-click/raise-on-focus) which
is sufficient to keep most desktop users happy. Gnome applets (maybe
only old-style ones?) are easy to incude, and it's generally a very
boring classic desktop gui with enough flexibility not to annoy people
used to a particular desktop and its behaviour.

I agree it's a sensible default if we are going to pick one.

Re accessibility: There is an 'accessibility' settings box with sticky
keys, slow keys, bounce keys, and mouse emulation. I really don't know
how that compares to the gnome options, or whether important aspects
are missing in places.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024173752.gx7...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-deb: a Git importer for Debian packages

Le 24/10/2013 18:34, Dmitrijs Ledkovs a écrit :
 On 24 October 2013 15:15, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Le 24/10/2013 15:57, Dmitrijs Ledkovs a écrit :
 On 24 October 2013 14:18, Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,
 I've written a tool to import Debian packages into Git:

 git clone deb::mypackage

 Is it compatible with Ian's dgit ?

 I only know what dgit does from reading the source code.  dgit works
 server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
 a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
 base for new uploads.  It's useful as part of a maintainer's workflow.
 My tool is useful to get a git view of any package, without waiting for
 anyone to convert their repo.
 
 Yes, sure. But it starts off a repository by taking the latest .dsc
 file and generating a commit out of it.
 The cool thing about how it generates the commit, is that it's
 reproducible and generates stable SHA-1 id by setting GIT time
 variables  author variables from the .dsc.
 Such that it doesn't matter who/where/when runs the import as the
 commit tree / commit id will be the same (well sans parenting
 information, but that could be easily fixed with graft points)

That's also the case here: the fast-import stream only depends on
downloaded archives.  Options that customise the import (skipping
commits and adding trusted keys) change the clone url by design.  Future
releases could change commit message conventions, however.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695711.2030...@gmail.com

Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]

2013-10-24 Thread Frederic Peters

Hi,

Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

 [Another new topic, sorry -develites]
 
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
  On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
   What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
   
   That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
   rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
   unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
   classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.
  
  An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode
  disappears.
 
 What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this sytemd
 stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of systemd like
 Ubuntu?

I can't answer for the systemd part but GNOME on BSDs mostly depends
on developers doing the sometimes necessary porting work. For example
Antoine Jacoutot (CC'ed so he can answer the systemd part) has been
working making sure it runs fine on OpenBSD. For the GNOME 3.10
release he produced a video demonstrating it running on OpenBSD:

  https://www.bsdfrog.org/tmp/gnome310.webm


Fred


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024172518.ga23...@0d.be

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Simon McVittie

On 24/10/13 17:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
 What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
 
 That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
 rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
 unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
 classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

My understanding was that it's the other way round: for Wheezy the
Debian default configuration for gdm3 (which is upstream's non-Shell
fallback mode) isn't accessible, and the recommendation is to switch it
to the GNOME-Shell-based mode used by upstream (which has more hardware
requirements, but is accessible) if required.

Debian wheezy's GNOME Classic is upstream's fallback session, with
the Panel and other GNOME-2-ish components. AIUI, upstream don't call
this mode Classic; that's a Debian invention.

Upstream's GNOME Classic on GNOME 3.8 onwards is GNOME Shell, with
some plugins to adjust its appearance and behaviour to be somewhere
between GNOME 2 and the normal Shell. It doesn't use GNOME Panel or
other deprecated-by-upstream components, and has the same hardware
requirements as the normal Shell.

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695d11.2000...@debian.org

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Simon McVittie

On 24/10/13 16:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
 assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
 doesn't it?

I believe the effect of not having systemd-logind is that the features
for which GNOME uses systemd-logind won't work: most notably
suspend/resume (mostly in gnome-settings-daemon), fast user switching
(mostly in gdm3 and Shell), and the sort of login-session tracking that
is done by ConsoleKit in wheezy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian
GNOME maintainers consider those to be basic functionality, at least on
Linux.

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695b72.5030...@debian.org

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Jackson Doak

+1 to xfce, but it might be worth using a nicer theme than the current xfce one.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote:
On 24/10/13 17:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?

That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME
classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8.

My understanding was that it's the other way round: for Wheezy the
Debian default configuration for gdm3 (which is upstream's non-Shell
fallback mode) isn't accessible, and the recommendation is to switch it
to the GNOME-Shell-based mode used by upstream (which has more hardware
requirements, but is accessible) if required.

Debian wheezy's GNOME Classic is upstream's fallback session, with
the Panel and other GNOME-2-ish components. AIUI, upstream don't call
this mode Classic; that's a Debian invention.

Upstream's GNOME Classic on GNOME 3.8 onwards is GNOME Shell, with
some plugins to adjust its appearance and behaviour to be somewhere
between GNOME 2 and the normal Shell. It doesn't use GNOME Panel or
other deprecated-by-upstream components, and has the same hardware
requirements as the normal Shell.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695d11.2000...@debian.org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CA+K2i_15d04h9jhQ3-q7JZf0gMZbsjBJg-aX-jjD62=wo8o...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727629: general: CPU fan always on (high speed)

2013-10-24 Thread Felipe

Package: general
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?
It's a fresh install (Wheezy and Jessie). There was no changes on the
system, and the fan works on high speed, with a normal temperature (39 ~ 41 C)
on both cores.

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
 ineffective)?
I've tried to reinstall Wheezy several times, upgraded its kernel to
3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.6 versions with no effect.
I've tried to install Debian Testing (Jessie), that was ineffective
too.
Killed a lot of applications - no effect.
Stopped GDM and worked on shell only - no effect.
Updated BIOS - no effect.

   * What was the outcome of this action?
No changes. The fan is still working on high speed with no need to.

   * What outcome did you expect instead?
The fan working normal.

My setup:
Dell Vostro 3560
Intel i5-3230M 2.60 Ghz (Turbo Boost 3.20 Ghz)
3rd generation Intel HD Graphics 4000



-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'testing-updates'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.10-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024184205.4000.29872.reportbug@felipenbkpd

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

]] Marvin Renich 

 I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
 in order to force adoption of systemd.

You're aware that GNOME and systemd upstreams are two completely
distinct groups with (AFAIK) very little overlap between them, right?
Even if one assume that they are intentionally coupling the two of them
tightly, I fail to see a motive on the GNOME maintainers.  They have no
obvious interest in making systemd ubiquitous.

 There are obviously others who do not believe this.  If it is true,
 however, I would consider it sufficient justification to both change
 Debian's default DE and eliminate systemd as a candidate for the
 default init system, regardless of any technical merits.

I have no idea how you get from «GNOME upstream couples their software
tightly to systemd interfaces» to «systemd should not be a candidate for
being a default init system».

GNOME upstream makes their own decisions on what interfaces they use.
They choose to depend on particular interfaces, and they should carry
the burden for that.  Not the depended-on component.

Also, I would personally be happier with switching the default desktop
environment away from GNOME if that means they the Debian GNOME
maintainers are more free to maintain the package as they believe best
without being micromanaged in what they put into their dependency
fields.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/m2a9hyjyit@rahvafeir.err.no

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

]] Thomas Goirand 

 On 10/24/2013 04:51 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

[...]

  If GNOME decides they want the DBus interfaces from systemd, that does
  not put any obligation on systemd or the systemd maintainers to split
  those bits of functionality out of systemd.
 
 We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
 modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
 reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
 re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
 That's a very different picture... :(

It's modular in two ways: Most of the functionality lives outside of pid
1.  You can also choose not to use all parts of it.  That does not mean
you can choose not to use systemd as init, but it means there are
optional components you can turn off.  I'm not aware of it being argued
anywhere that you can pick and choose random components and they would
work fine with any other init system.

[...]

 At the end, if in Debian, there are ways so that we have all components
 of systemd and Gnome work well together *and* retain the modularity we
 used to have, I think we should go for it. And yes, to the extend of
 feasibility, this is IMO up to the systemd and Gnome maintainers to not
 introduce a regression where one (even if it's at the cost of loosing
 some upstream functionality) doesn't loose the possibility to choose
 components running on his system.

I don't think this is up to the systemd maintainers at all.  What you're
asking here is for us to support a configuration which we don't think
makes sense and a configuration which none of us run.  The GNOME
maintainers are of course allowed to ask if we can support that
configuration, but «no» should then also be an acceptable answer.  How
the GNOME maintainers deal with that is really up to them.  I'm sorry to
the for putting them between a rock and a hard place like that, but the
alternative is putting myself and the other systemd maintainers there.

 Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not? Or is there more to it? The
 more the answer is yes, it's becoming a lot more complex than this,
 then the more we'd be locked-in.

Patches need to be maintained.  Configurations need to be tested in
order to stay supported.  Nobody has volunteered for that job.  I'm not
going to pretend to support configurations I believe won't work.  That's
just dishonest.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/m261smjxwi@rahvafeir.err.no

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Cesare Leonardi


On 24/10/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:

Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.


I agree.
I'm using it happily for more than a year and it mostly works. Less 
mature than Gnome 2.x, which i still miss, but powerful and functional.



Pros:

  * CD#1 will work again without size worries

  * Smaller, simpler desktop

  * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)

  * Does not depend on replacing init


* Works well with old hardware.

* Basic compositing works well.


Cons:
  * please fill in here


* Currrent version 4.10 is older than a year and the current development 
is very slow: i've read many times that it mostly depends on the 
cronical lack of manpower.
Even if i agree on make xfce the default desktop, i think that upstream 
health is a parameter that Debian should consider evaluating this switch.


* As as a consequence of the previous point, i agree with Neil Williams 
that xfce-goodies needs some love.


Cesare.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52697682.2070...@gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:25:12PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
 Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
  On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:

   * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
   (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it 
   takes
   over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
   kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.

  I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
  confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are currently
  hierarchical, I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory,
  different programs could be responsible for different parts of
  the hierarchy.

 It currently can't prevent you from just mounting the cgroupfs and
 working with it.  One of the justifications presented at plumbers for
 wanting to do this was that changes to a subtree you control can
 affect other tasks.  But it was agreed that that was actually only
 for realtime (?) cgroup and that it is a bug which must be fixed.

The upshot being, AIUI, that there is a legitimate need for a single process
on each system to have a complete view of the cgroups heirarchy; even if
most users don't need a fine-grained policy manager, we should design with
this in mind.  On systems using systemd as init, the plan is for PID 1 to be
the process that has this overview, and that's fine; the problem is the
tight coupling of logind to systemd init for this, rather than using a
standard interface that can be implemented by multiple providers of a cgroup
manager service.

And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.  So if you
want any of the other users of cgroups (such as lxc) to coexist with
systemd, there needs to be a common protocol for this.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Jackson Doak

XFCE is short of maintainers, both upstream and debian, but 4.12 is
expected to be released sometime in the next 6 months. That said,
everything both debian and upstream is stable, and a number of 4.11
development release packages are able to be uploaded to experimental
if more people come onboard to help with the resultant bugs.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Cesare Leonardi celeo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/10/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:

Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.

I agree.
I'm using it happily for more than a year and it mostly works. Less mature
than Gnome 2.x, which i still miss, but powerful and functional.

Pros:

* CD#1 will work again without size worries

* Smaller, simpler desktop

* Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)

* Does not depend on replacing init

* Works well with old hardware.

* Basic compositing works well.

Cons:
* please fill in here

* Currrent version 4.10 is older than a year and the current development is
very slow: i've read many times that it mostly depends on the cronical lack
of manpower.
Even if i agree on make xfce the default desktop, i think that upstream
health is a parameter that Debian should consider evaluating this switch.

* As as a consequence of the previous point, i agree with Neil Williams that
xfce-goodies needs some love.

Cesare.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52697682.2070...@gmail.com

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/ca+k2i_1y-rf2433hhdqnd0dzywtv3f-5vnyecb6drofcq3_...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:35:30PM +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
 On 24/10/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
 
 I agree.
 I'm using it happily for more than a year and it mostly works. Less
 mature than Gnome 2.x, which i still miss, but powerful and
 functional.

I guess you want Mate then.  It hasn't fully landed in Debian yet, but
there's full packaging ready both upstream and in multiple derivatives.
It's a matter of bringing back the good work of our Gnome team from before
their upstream went completely bonkers.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024194440.ga27...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:

 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.

 In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.

I'm missing a key bit of context here.  Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that systemd be installed?  Or does it require that the init
system be systemd?

The systemd package itself can be installed without changing init systems,
so it's possible that gnome-settings-daemon just needs the non-init parts
of this and one can install systemd for those bits and then go on with
one's life without changing init systems.  However, I don't know if
systemd installed this way then starts its various non-init services.

This seems like a fairly critical question, since if all that is required
is for the systemd package to be installed (but without a change in the
init system), this is all a tempest in a teapot.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fvrqfok8@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
 GNOME deals with some critical things...

Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with outrageously? Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you
want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter,
please give me some bugnumbers.

Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024194208.gb29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:49:48AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
 I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
 in order to force adoption of systemd.  There are obviously others who

GNOME is not. And I'm speaking as a GNOME release team member.

A video of GNOME 3.10 running on OpenBSD:
https://www.bsdfrog.org/tmp/gnome310.webm

A link to the GNOME release team members:
https://wiki.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/Membership

Don't think I need to list the main systemd developers.

I can show you various bugreports by OpenBSD developers fixing things
and adding new support in GNOME.

But in brief:
- If you want something to happen, patches welcome
- OpenBSD sent patches
- systemd does not run on OpenBSD, GNOME 3.10 does
- if you want the things we rely on via systemd, but you don't want
  systemd but you do want GNOME to maintain that difference for you,
  then could be that you get a request to maintain something like that
  yourself
- we did assume that logind would always be separate from systemd as
  Canonical used it in 3.8 and requested freeze breaks to properly
  support that. v205+ that assumption proved to be wrong. Mea culpa.
- GNOME 3.10 runs on OpenBSD (probably good to repeat this :P)

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024192452.ga29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
 with outrageously?
Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war.
There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is
known now for years upstream, who even try to actively hide that fact
away.
The same for SSL/TLS which is completely useless in Epiphany,.. again
known for a long time.
I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.

I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.


  Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you
 want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by
 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter,
 please give me some bugnumbers.
 
 Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word.
I guess I need no teaching from you what some words mean or how I use
them :)


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382645273.6907.90.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Bug#727644: ITP: snap-byob -- ITP: snap-byob -- A block-based drag-and-drop programming environment

2013-10-24 Thread Nicolas Guilbert

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Guilbert nico...@ange.dk

* Package name: snap-byob
  Version : 4.0
  Upstream Author : Jens Mönig j...@moenig.org
* URL : http://snap.berkeley.edu
* License : AGPL
  Programming Lang: Javascript
  Description : ITP: snap-byob -- A block-based drag-and-drop programming 
environment

 Snap! (formerly BYOB) is a visual drag-and-drop programming language
 designed for the creation of interactive stories, animations, games, music,
 and art.
 It is an extended reimplementation of Scratch (a project of the Lifelong 
 Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab) that allows you to Build Your 
 Own Blocks.
 .
 Snap! is designed to help young people develop 21st century learning skills. 
 As they create Snap! projects, they learn important mathematical and
 computational ideas, while also gaining a deeper understanding of the process 
of
 design.
 .
 It also features first class lists, first class procedures,
 and continuations. These added capabilities make it suitable for a serious
 introduction to computer science for high school or college students.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024204738.2381.70215.reportbug@ikulrir

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
 
 I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
 from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.

Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest
you are.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024203726.gd29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian
Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024205058.ga13...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
  I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
  
  I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
  from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.
 Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest
 you are.

I don't see what you mean? I said one should be respectful and polite,
but this doesn't mean one has to conceal the truth, does it?

If I would have called GNOME upstream assh*** or anything similar
(which I did not and which is not my intention),... then I'd be
impolite.
But stating that IMHO a lot goes wrong in which ways GNOME has chosen
and that there are also critical issues that go beyond things like One
doesn't like GNOME Shell or whatsoever... has nothing to do with being
nice or not.


Cheers,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
 init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
Whoah, that's not true:

sudo systemd-nspawn -bD ~/images/fedora-19

works just fine :)

Zbyszek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024202910.gl28...@in.waw.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now

2013-10-24 Thread Mark - Syminet


This is a move to SABOTAGE linux as an OS. 

-- 
Mark 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:30:41PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 Hi.
 
 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.
 
 
 In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
 
 I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
 for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
 integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
 at all).
 
 Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
 it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
 (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
 *will* get enabled.
 
 I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
 this, but the only answer so far is basically GNOME now depends on
 systemd.
 I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
 have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their blessings upon
 their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
 side.
 
 
 So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
 now with such cases?
 And does anyone know whether it causes hurt to just install the
 package without using it?
 
 
 Thanks,
 Chris.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024213253.GB4770@debian

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Roger Lynn

On 24/10/13 03:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
  Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should 
  be
  separated out in the packaging.
 Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
 systemd (the init system).
 
 Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
 tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
 pushing an agenda.

How often is the choice of default desktop re-evaluated, and how is this done?

Roger


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kogoja-272@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

Hi.

Since some people have demanded to drop GNOME as default desktop in my
systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME thread the following
popped up in my mind:

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
Do we need to have a default desktop at all?

I mean it's IMHO fine to select some defaults for very low level system
stuff or libraries,... like Heimdal vs. MIT Kerberos, or the init
system, or the initramfs toolkit...
In some other places it may seem worth to select one default, but I
would have some issues with it (like the crypto consolidation).


But do we really need a default desktop environment? Can't we just let
people choose during installation, present them a list with some of the
key properties of the different projects?


Since there are so many issues with GNOME now, not only technical but
also things with respect to the work model that GNOME forces upon their
users, I think that it actually is time to reconsider GNOME being the
default desktop, but this doesn't necessary mean, that we need to
promote another one into that position.



Note that I'm talking about default desktop - not default widget
toolkit.
I can't imagine any case where it should be impossible to build one
package with multiple toolkits (of course if the package supports them),
but if such case should exist, then I personally think it's good to have
a default widget set in which case I would stick with GTK.


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382654354.1296.8.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Paul Wise

I agree with the people who suggest getting rid of the concept of a
'default' desktop but I don't know how practical it is since not all
users will be capable of choosing a desktop. So we need to develop
some guidance for them. In the netinst image and web pages a list of
desktop blends would need to be presented, perhaps with screenshots.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caktje6hlinzpfwdyu3hobwjneukqc-v7p6ds7ak+ns5gsd3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

Roger Lynn ro...@rilynn.me.uk writes:

 How often is the choice of default desktop re-evaluated, and how is this
 done?

We have an argument about it at least once every release cycle.  One of
the problems with the recurring argument is that we don't have a good
decision-making criteria.  Another problem is that the discussion is
generally held among Debian developers here, and very few people reading
this mailing list would feel at all constrained by the default selection
in the installer.  So it's one of those decisions that is made by people
outside of the target audience for the results of the decision, which is
always tricky.

For example, I use Xfce and have ever since GNOME stopped supporting the
video card on my previous laptop, although I probably should have switched
to KDE when I switched laptops just to keep trying the different
environments.  But nearly the only programs I run in X are xterm, Emacs,
Pidgin, and Iceweasel, I turn off most of the features of any desktop
environment, and I never ever use file browsers, so relying on my opinion
to choose the default desktop environment for average users is a bit like
asking a gourmet chef what brand of microwave to buy.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4bae1q8@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Brian May

On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.netwrote:

 Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
 more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
 They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
 blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users.


If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.

There are alternatives. e.g. KDE. I use Awesome myself.

Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013-10-24 Thread Brian May

On 25 October 2013 06:24, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:

 - GNOME 3.10 runs on OpenBSD (probably good to repeat this :P)


If I understand this correctly, upstream Gnome 3.10 will run fine on
OpenBSD.

However the Debian packages won't work on OpenBSD, as gnome-settings-daemon
depends on systemd which does not exist for OpenBSD.

What would break if the depend on systemd was changed to a recommend?
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:

 But do we really need a default desktop environment?

There are different ways of presenting the choice that make the choice
more or less obvious, but it's hard to avoid a default choice in an
installer.  Even if you force the user to pick one of a list of options,
users will tend to pick the first on the list.

If you need to eliminate the concept of default entirely, the best you can
probably do is either not install a desktop environment at all by default,
or randomize the list each time it's presented, so each user sees a
different default.

Neither of those seem particularly appealing.

There is a lot of practical benefit to aligning our default choice with
the defaults chosen by other versions of Linux, since it means that the
user who is vaguely familiar with Linux at just a user level will see a
consistent and expected user interface when installing Debian.  I suspect
the concept of the default desktop environment is less important (although
not unimportant) for Debian than for a lot of other Linux distributions
since Debian by nature tends to attract more sophisticated users who are
more comfortable with the idea of switching such things themselves.

It might be worth noting here that, anecdotally, I talk to a lot of more
casual Linux users who view the various desktop-variant Ubuntu install
choices (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) as separate Linux distributions from
Ubuntu itself, although my understanding is that the differences apart
from the choice of default desktop environment are minimal and you can
achieve effectively the same results by just installing Ubuntu and then
the desktop environment of your choice.  The idea of the desktop
environment just being an option in the distribution like your choice of
editor or web browser seems somewhat foreign to a lot of
less-sophisticated users.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3h2e072@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

2013-10-24 Thread Paul Wise

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:

There are different ways of presenting the choice that make the choice
more or less obvious, but it's hard to avoid a default choice in an
installer. Even if you force the user to pick one of a list of options,
users will tend to pick the first on the list.

If you need to eliminate the concept of default entirely, the best you can
probably do is either not install a desktop environment at all by default,
or randomize the list each time it's presented, so each user sees a
different default.

Neither of those seem particularly appealing.

I'm sure we can find some designers who are capable of creating lists
that have no first/last destop blend. Even I can think of a couple; a
circle of desktop blend logos/names around Debian or a 3x3 grid of
desktop blends.

It might be worth noting here that, anecdotally, I talk to a lot of more
casual Linux users who view the various desktop-variant Ubuntu install
choices (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) as separate Linux distributions from
Ubuntu itself

I guess that is a consequence of how those variants are presented by
Ubuntu, as well as the fact that the UIs are different and for most
operating systems there is one UI only so people are used to the idea
that one UI = one OS.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6EugfH1i+hrWXhSVjUBgXPivYSSba3yHdiFrvGRKn=s...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
 On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:

 There are different ways of presenting the choice that make the choice
 more or less obvious, but it's hard to avoid a default choice in an
 installer.  Even if you force the user to pick one of a list of
 options, users will tend to pick the first on the list.

 If you need to eliminate the concept of default entirely, the best you
 can probably do is either not install a desktop environment at all by
 default, or randomize the list each time it's presented, so each user
 sees a different default.

 Neither of those seem particularly appealing.

 I'm sure we can find some designers who are capable of creating lists
 that have no first/last destop blend. Even I can think of a couple; a
 circle of desktop blend logos/names around Debian or a 3x3 grid of
 desktop blends.

That's a good point.  I may have insufficient imagination.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87a9hydzcx@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 06:48 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
 I agree with the people who suggest getting rid of the concept of a
 'default' desktop but I don't know how practical it is since not all
 users will be capable of choosing a desktop.
I don't think user's are that stupid.
Just think about the browser selection dialogue that MS was forced to
add for Windows in the EU.

Add a bunch of screenshots and/or a bunch of neutrally written features
(pros/cons)... and things should be fine.

Actually,... all of the major desktops should be fine for the casual
end-user, shouldn't they?
And someone who know that he hate's NM or Qt, or that he wants foobar,
will for sure know which desktop is the one for him.


Cheers,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce