Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 25.11.2014 16:29, Philip Hands wrote: How is it that Debian changing the default for something on some of What about the enforced replace on dist-upgrade, which at least produces lots of extra work and can easily cause systems being unbootable ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5482bec5.8030...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult enrico.weig...@gr13.net writes: What about the enforced replace on dist-upgrade, which at least produces lots of extra work and can easily cause systems being unbootable ? It's an urban legend that people are getting all upset about even though it's not actually true? Right now, there is a pre-upgrade step that you have to take (apt-get install sysvinit-core prior to dist-upgrade) to avoid switching to systemd [*]. That's certainly not the best imaginable UI, but there's nothing enforced about an upgrade that you can easily avoid with one preliminary step. Those of us who have been using Debian for a while and have gone through many dist-upgrades will remember several releases where there were pre-upgrade steps we had to take for dist-upgrade to succeed, including some that could make the system unbootable if forgotten. It's never ideal, but, once again, people are confusing the normal variation of Debian releases with the end of the world because the letters systemd happen to be attached. (This is not to say that we shouldn't aspire to doing better when we can. Only that people are getting unnecessarily panicked about this.) [*] It's possible that you may also have to add a pin and/or install systemd-shim, but hopefully not. I think if a pin is also necessary, there's a bug somewhere, although I haven't investigated it myself and don't know how easy it would be to fix that bug. Regardless, one step or two, we can certainly document this in the release notes even if it doesn't get better before the release. We should definitely sort out the exact working instructions for what we ship with jessie and get them into the release notes before we release. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/87y4qkekn3@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Marco d'Itri, 2014-12-04 23:58:58 +0100 : On Dec 04, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote: While using many more times the resources. You obviously have no idea of the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial quantities of web sites. So what do you want to imply would be secure? The point is not just secure, but secure and scalable. And sadly the only good solution that fits this criteria is php-cgi with some kind of uid-changing wrapper. There's also libapache2-mpm-itk, which works just fine with PHP. [...] FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting a significant number of web sites. Why not? Because RAM is expensive and you cannot keep tens or even thousands of fastcgi processes around waiting for a request. MPM-ITK does the setuid based on the request, so you get a (small) performance penalty but you keep a reasonable number of processes waiting for requests. Roland. -- Roland Mas You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- in the tunefs(8) manual page. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ppbyo537@placard.fr.eu.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 29.11.2014 20:43, Svante Signell wrote: The best for kFreeBSD and Hurd would be to abandoning the Debian ship. It is sinking :( (just let the devuan people get things in order first) Well, I'll also put my projecsts on getting rid of polkit into that direction. Why ? Because I've got the impression that these guys still value traditional unix concepts, like using the filesystem for simple hierarchical data structures and access control, tiny and easily compositable servers and tools, etc. cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5480782f.3050...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 29.11.2014 20:45, Ivan Shmakov wrote: As for Systemd being the default (on Debian GNU/Linux, specifically), – I guess I shouldn’t bother. GNOME is also the default, but I cannot readily recall ever having it running on my Debian installs. By the way: didn't GNOME originally have the intention of being crossplaform, not Linux-only ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5480793e.3000...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 28.11.2014 19:09, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: For many things, CGI is actually the only way to run them securely, since it's the only way to run foreign processes in a container environment (chroots, etc.) or with user privilege separation. Not entirely true. About a decade ago, I've wrote muxmpm, which ran individual sites under their own uid/gid, chroot, etc. That made things like cgixec, php's safe_mode etc practically obsolete. It was even shipped by several large distros, eg. suse (the orignal one, not novell). cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54807f48.9060...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Christoph Anton Mitterer: For many things, CGI is actually the only way to run them securely, since it's the only way to run foreign processes in a container environment (chroots, etc.) or with user privilege separation. ? If you can run a CGI inside a chroot/container/whatever, you can run a small web server on a local port / Unix socket, and reverse-proxy it, just as easily. FastCGI is just a slightly more fancy way of doing this. The poor man alternatives like mod-php5 are nothing which a security conscious admin would ever use. Definitely. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141204160325.gs6...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Dec 04, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: If you can run a CGI inside a chroot/container/whatever, you can run a small web server on a local port / Unix socket, and reverse-proxy it, just as easily. While using many more times the resources. You obviously have no idea of the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial quantities of web sites. FastCGI is just a slightly more fancy way of doing this. FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting a significant number of web sites. -- ciao, Marco pgpIRIYDkhZ2t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Marco d'Itri: On Dec 04, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: If you can run a CGI inside a chroot/container/whatever, you can run a small web server on a local port / Unix socket, and reverse-proxy it, just as easily. While using many more times the resources. Which many more are you talking about? Setting up a chroot and starting an external program has the same cost. Thus, a CGI script is more expensive than a FastCGI process or a small web app (Python Flask or whatever) as soon as the second request for a resource it serves arrives. You obviously have no idea of the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial quantities of web sites. You obviously assume that the users' app servers need to actually run before they're able to serve requests. This assumption is incorrect. I start the app server and its container via socket activation. (In most cases, unfortunately, this is a simple php5-fpm server.) I then stop it after a few seconds of inactivity (or with an LRU list, based on how much server memory is left). Problem solved. … at least in principle; socket activation still isn't exactly common, so this solution still requires a couple of hacks to work, and I really should submit some patches. :-/ But it works. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141204205543.gt6...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 17:03 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: If you can run a CGI inside a chroot/container/whatever, you can run a small web server on a local port / Unix socket, and reverse-proxy it, just as easily. Well that's probably roughly the same, although I'd still feel better if webserver and actual services/programs run with different UIDs, which seems especially important when one also does DB accesses (i.e. access control based on the UID). FastCGI is just a slightly more fancy way of doing this. Sure... I didn't meant to exclude FastCGI, but last time I've checked it didn't allow to run different PHP (talking about the PHP fastcgi version now) programs to run with different UIDs (all run with that of FPM)... but maybe I just didn't check carefully enough. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 21:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: While using many more times the resources. You obviously have no idea of the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial quantities of web sites. So what do you want to imply would be secure? Apart from that, when you speak of non-trivial quantities - I'd probably say that running gazillion websites from different entities on one host is generally a really bad idea. So I don't think your argument really counts that much (assumed I've understood it correctly ;) ). FastCGI is just a slightly more fancy way of doing this. FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting a significant number of web sites. Why not? When I've investigated in mod-php vs. cgi vs. fcgi, the fcgi turned out to have roughly the same performance as mod-php (plain cgi of course much worse). In addition: mod-php can only be used with mpm-prefork, as it's not thread safe. So I wouldn't see anything (except XYZ should run insecurely out-of-the-box) which makes mod-php better in any use case than the alternatives. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Dec 04, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote: While using many more times the resources. You obviously have no idea of the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial quantities of web sites. So what do you want to imply would be secure? The point is not just secure, but secure and scalable. And sadly the only good solution that fits this criteria is php-cgi with some kind of uid-changing wrapper. Apart from that, when you speak of non-trivial quantities - I'd probably say that running gazillion websites from different entities on one host is generally a really bad idea. Web hosting is a complex business. FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting a significant number of web sites. Why not? Because RAM is expensive and you cannot keep tens or even thousands of fastcgi processes around waiting for a request. So I wouldn't see anything (except XYZ should run insecurely out-of-the-box) which makes mod-php better in any use case than the alternatives. This is correct. -- ciao, Marco pgp8sy1ENn0Io.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:23:15 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote: Apart from that, when you speak of non-trivial quantities - I'd probably say that running gazillion websites from different entities on one host is generally a really bad idea. Gazillions of websites are served from such setups. Yes, using Debian. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xwfza-0001yi...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes: On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 21:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting a significant number of web sites. Why not? When I've investigated in mod-php vs. cgi vs. fcgi, the fcgi turned out to have roughly the same performance as mod-php (plain cgi of course much worse). FastCGI, at least the normal way I've seen it deployed, sets up a running daemon for each script that's running via FastCGI. (You can spawn those dynamically to some extent, but that's fairly limited, and then you're mostly reproducing a standard CGI environment with extra complexity.) If your web site hosting has unbounded numbers of untrusted scripts that it may be running (I've had to solve this problem for unique script counts over one million), that FastCGI environment is rather... challenging to set up. In the long run, that sort of sandbox environment is dying for other reasons, and people are gravitating towards application platforms like Drupal that pose other, different maintenance challenges. But FastCGI is not a replacement for standard CGI if you actually fully used the capabilities of standard CGI (merits of allowing that aside -- it's hard to turn insecure things off when tens of thousands of people have written lots and lots of web sites assuming that behavior). -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/871tofx8v8@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 25.11.2014 18:30, Stephen Gran wrote: Excellent. I'm sure that if they can create a deb, they can install sysvinit, or runit, or some BSD, or whatever else they want. A default is only a default, after all. Just curious about the term default: Can I still install a system w/o systemd ever going into my system - instead of replacing it later (eg. some option in the installer) ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54811f6d.7040...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 27.11.2014 00:29, Noel Torres wrote: manpower required to maintain a distribution with more than one init system widey installed, manpower to perform the required changes to support multiple init systems in Jessie, centered about the most important question: our users. Just curious: how large actually is the overhead for that ? For most packages, that IMHO should be just still writing/updating init scripts parallel to systemd service descriptors. I haven't had the time for a deeper analysis (systemd specifications aren't entirely precise and complete ;-o), but maybe we could even generate them from an common primary source, at least for a large portion of the cases. But there are other cases like GNOME (and IIRC KDE), which now seem to rely on systemd. I haven't done a deeper analysis what's exactly the big deal about it, and why we now need a new init system (or parts of it) for that. The most common argument I've heared from systemd folks is the multi-seat issue. Well, I'm maybe a bit old-fashioned, such setups aren't anything but new to me (actually, done that 20 years ago), and I wonder what that all has to do with the init system. The primary aspect here is a proper Xserver configuration. We'll always have to support various unusual setups, like multi-screen composition, multiple input devices, etc, so just having multiple Xservers on separate screens seems a rather simple sub-case. An hardcoded magic like systemd-logind does (eg. it generates it's own xserver configs on the fly) sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. It might be working for a large number of users, but also limits the whole stack to those rather simple scenarios. The big question I'd ask the systemd and gnome folks is: Why do these things all have to be so deeply interdependent ? I would even question, why each DE needs it own display manager ? What's so wrong with all the other DMs ? Certain DEs (like GNOME and KDE) seem trying to build their own operating system - I really fail to understand why. cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54812cc2.6080...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 27.11.2014 11:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. I still wonder why there are provided within systemd then. Same for me. If there really is some functionality which some DEs really need, why not having an entirely separate tool for that ? Anyways, I still didn't understand why udev is bundled within systemd. cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54812dae.9080...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 27.11.2014 11:53, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. Can you understand, that this method is exactly one of the major reason why many people dont like the systemd faction ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54812e53.9080...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult enrico.weig...@gr13.net writes: On 27.11.2014 00:29, Noel Torres wrote: manpower required to maintain a distribution with more than one init system widey installed, manpower to perform the required changes to support multiple init systems in Jessie, centered about the most important question: our users. Just curious: how large actually is the overhead for that ? For most packages, that IMHO should be just still writing/updating init scripts parallel to systemd service descriptors. I haven't had the time for a deeper analysis (systemd specifications aren't entirely precise and complete ;-o), but maybe we could even generate them from an common primary source, at least for a large portion of the cases. All this has been discussed extensively in the last 3 years, and it has been attempted before that: https://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit. But there are other cases like GNOME (and IIRC KDE), which now seem to rely on systemd. I haven't done a deeper analysis [...] Other people have, and (again) it has been discussed extensively in the least year. Please review the archives. Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4qm67h4@vostro.rath.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 05:02:27AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: On 27.11.2014 11:53, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. Can you understand, that this method is exactly one of the major reason why many people dont like the systemd faction ? It looks like the's some interesting development based on ConsoleKit2, such as LoginKit which translates CK2 calls to a logind-compatible API. ConsoleKit2 itself appears to be a deep fork rather than just maintained ConsoleKit(1), there's some internal overhaul and I heard rumours about providing logind-compatible API directly (thus making the above LoginKit obsolete). So it looks there's hope we won't get saddled with systemd-logind. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141205051456.ga10...@angband.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: On 25.11.2014 18:30, Stephen Gran wrote: Excellent. I'm sure that if they can create a deb, they can install sysvinit, or runit, or some BSD, or whatever else they want. A default is only a default, after all. Just curious about the term default: Can I still install a system w/o systemd ever going into my system - instead of replacing it later (eg. some option in the installer) ? With current d-i and/or debootstrap no, although you can give it an obscure incantation that will replace systemd-sysv with sysvinit-core just afterwards (leaving junk like systemd and its dependencies). The latter can be fixed with a simple fix to --exclude (with a patch by Kenshi Muto in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668001#20 ) but KiBi repeatedly keeps refusing that fix. The former is less important as use cases that run d-i tend to be able to boot with systemd (no custom kernel, no containers, etc) and thus getting rid of it can be done as your regular after-install configuration. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141205053432.gb10...@angband.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult enrico.weig...@gr13.net writes: Same for me. If there really is some functionality which some DEs really need, why not having an entirely separate tool for that ? Anyways, I still didn't understand why udev is bundled within systemd. And I don't understand why you think your personal level of understanding is interesting to the hundreds or thousands of people on this list. Apparently, although you don't understand this, you don't care enough about your lack of understanding to go do the mild amount of research required to figure out why both of those decisions were made. It's not like anyone's hiding the reasoning. Both decisions have been discussed dozens of times over the past two years on this mailing list and many other archived mailing lists around the Internet. You could also just politely ask the people who made those decisions if you really can't find the answer. (Being a polite person, I'm sure that you would understand that an answer would be a favor to you, and wouldn't use that just as an excuse to argue with people about their decisions.) If you are curious and wanted to understand, there are many obvious resources available for you to use. You might not *agree* with the decisions or the reasoning behind them, but that's not the same thing as not *understanding*. Please, either go do the research required to answer your own question, or don't, but stop telling all the rest of us about your lack of understanding. At this point, this sort of message is essentially a troll, since someone will see it, be unable to resist the urge to be helpful, try to explain the reasoning *yet again*, and off we'll go down the same futile merry-go-round of argument. Each time someone explains or asks for an explanation for the motivation for systemd to them again, a kitten dies. Please, think of the kittens. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/87tx1atz1c@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
This one time, at band camp, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult said: On 25.11.2014 18:30, Stephen Gran wrote: Excellent. I'm sure that if they can create a deb, they can install sysvinit, or runit, or some BSD, or whatever else they want. A default is only a default, after all. Just curious about the term default: Can I still install a system w/o systemd ever going into my system - instead of replacing it later (eg. some option in the installer) ? I'm just curious as well. Are you unable to do basic research, or are you purposefully trolling to keep the conversation going? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Philipp Kern wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Hey, there are *still* bugs found because of s390 (not s390x). Uhm. s390x is 64bit BE; ppc64 and sparc64 never made it into the archive. Sure, but I was thinking of other issues, like ptrdiff_t. bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1412011037570.1...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote: The best for kFreeBSD and Hurd would be to abandoning the Debian ship. No. It is sinking It has sunk, but not gone underwater yet completely. (just let the devuan people get things in order first) And can you *please* *stop* the devuan trolling? Thanks. bye, //mirabilos -- Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer. -- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1412011044080.1...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Axel Wagner wrote: […] Axel Wagner *plonk* Congrats, you’re the second person, after Josselin. (No, this eMail was not the only one, just the one to trigger overflow.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1412011045510.1...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Thorsten Glaser: Axel Wagner *plonk* There have been much worse emails here than calling somebody a troll for intentionally posting misleading information. If it quacks like a duck, and all that. The only other reason for you to plonk Axel I could find (after reading the last couple of his mails here) is that he happens to disagree with you. If you intend to appear unreasonable, then I suppose this helps. Otherwise, not so much. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sunday, 30 de November de 2014 18:05:54 Neil Williams escribió: [...] Contribute code or stop wasting everyone's time on the mailing lists. Contributing code is not the only way to contribute to Debian. At least to the Debian I love. Please come out of the developer shell. Translators, e.g. are a very important part of the project, even if they have not been give the same voting status as so-called Debian Developers. Please stop THAT. Nothing will change without someone doing the work - whatever the issue. That is true. But no work can be done if nobody realizes that it needs to be done. If that isn't you, then do everyone a favour and stop posting to these endless threads. True, these posts are becoming endless. If you read my posts on them, you'll notice I acknowledge for systemd being the default on Jessie. It was our TC decision and I can not do anything but acknowledge it. It does not matter if I like systemd or not. And it does not mater if systemd is buggy or not, fit for release or not. But still there is place to decide a lot of other things about systemd. The GR did not resolve the issue of switching by default or not, to name one. This is my contribution now, to try to raise issues in a calm manner. Exactly the same issues most of our users have and some of our maintainers seem to not address properly. It has been expressed before: This is not only a discussion about technical issues. Regards er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Noel Torres wrote: Contributing code is not the only way to contribute to Debian. At least to the Debian I love. Please come out of the developer shell. Translators, e.g. are a very important part of the project, even if they have not been give the same voting status as so-called Debian Developers. Please stop THAT. Indeed, there are many ways to help Debian: https://www.debian.org/intro/help FYI, translators (and other contributors) always were eligible to become Debian members and now we explicitly encourage them to do so: https://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002 https://www.debian.org/vote/2010/vote_002 -- bye, pabs https://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: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GJJc4hadJ1_=fffozbk7njb5ctioq2qf0ezhlkkwd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On 27.11.2014 02:18, Josh Triplett wrote: gnome Depends: gnome-core, which Depends: gnome-user-share, which Depends: apache2-bin (or apache2.2-bin in stable, which is a transitional package depending on apache2-bin in unstable). gnome depends on apache ? seriously ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547d44b3.6030...@gr13.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: On 27.11.2014 02:18, Josh Triplett wrote: gnome Depends: gnome-core, which Depends: gnome-user-share, which Depends: apache2-bin (or apache2.2-bin in stable, which is a transitional package depending on apache2-bin in unstable). gnome depends on apache ? gnome-user-share uses apache2 to share files on the local network via WebDAV. http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-user-share/3.14.0-1/src/http.c/#L270 http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-user-share/3.14.0-1/src/user_share-webdav.c/#L161 http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-user-share/3.14.0-1/src/user_share-webdav.c/#L65 seriously ? Sharing files with other computers on the local network seems like perfectly reasonable and useful feature to me. In the past I have done it with the busybox httpd but the gnome-user-share implementation seems to be much more user friendly. -- bye, pabs https://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: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6F--6Ym2bOyy+C0yGN+btimb8WezZaK=gmhburomqo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Le samedi 29 novembre 2014 à 16:37 +, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: […] Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. Is that “use” as in “if available” or is that actually “require and be sure to die unless provided”? Directly: DEs provide more useful features (especially power management) with systemd but will work correctly without. Indirectly through PolicyKit: lots of functionality will be missing if PolicyKit doesn’t have access to a console management interface. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417339417.25136.4.ca...@debian.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Friday, 28 de November de 2014 07:45:29 Josselin Mouette escribió: [...] This is nothing short of bullying. If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. So do you prefer to expel Debian contributors to Devuan if they do not agree to systemd rather than adressing their concerns? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:59:06 + Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org wrote: On Friday, 28 de November de 2014 07:45:29 Josselin Mouette escribió: [...] This is nothing short of bullying. If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. So do you prefer to expel Debian contributors to Devuan if they do not agree to systemd rather than adressing their concerns? No. This statement by Josselin applies to everyone, no matter what they personally think of systemd or any other package in Debian or outside Debian: If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. If erstwhile contributors choose to put their efforts elsewhere, that is their choice - it is not an action by Debian, even if those former contributors blame a decision by Debian for their choice. Decisions have been made, votes cast by those entitled to vote. Whatever anyone thinks of any of those results, it is time to think only of getting Jessie released. Those who cannot live with that need to now move their disagreement elsewhere. Everyone has the right to choose where to contribute. I've made my choice. Make yours and stick to it. Enough is enough. Move on from where we are or contribute elsewhere. Contribute code or stop wasting everyone's time on the mailing lists. Nothing will change without someone doing the work - whatever the issue. If that isn't you, then do everyone a favour and stop posting to these endless threads. Come in boat 7, you're time is up. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpPxvOIJBsoz.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Sonntag, 30. November 2014, 18:05:54 schrieb Neil Williams: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:59:06 + Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org wrote: […] Debian: If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. If erstwhile contributors choose to put their efforts elsewhere, that is their choice - it is not an action by Debian, even if those former contributors blame a decision by Debian for their choice. Decisions have been made, votes cast by those entitled to vote. Whatever anyone thinks of any of those results, it is time to think only of getting Jessie released. Those who cannot live with that need to now move their disagreement elsewhere. Everyone has the right to choose where to contribute. I've made my choice. Make yours and stick to it. Enough is enough. Move on from where we are or contribute elsewhere. You complain about people blaming Debian, or more exactly Debian technical committee and GR decisions, for their decision to leave. Yes, it is anyone´s decision to leave. No one to blame for it. But that also works in the other direction. By no means anyone did force you to spend your time reading in this and replying to this thread. You decided to do so. Its your decision and there is no one to blame for it. This is the agree to disagree part I wrote about. And it is applicable to all the involved ones, not just to one side. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Le dimanche 30 novembre 2014 à 19:59 +0100, Martin Steigerwald a écrit : You complain about people blaming Debian, or more exactly Debian technical committee and GR decisions, for their decision to leave. Yes, it is anyone´s decision to leave. No one to blame for it. But that also works in the other direction. By no means anyone did force you to spend your time reading in this and replying to this thread. You decided to do so. Its your decision and there is no one to blame for it. No. Some people are abusing this forum dedicated to the *development of Debian* with off-topic bitter rants about decisions that are not going to be undone for jessie. They *are* forcing those who want to discuss the development of Debian to read this fecal matter instead. For the last time, I am kindly asking you to stop this. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417380849.2848.5.ca...@debian.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Sonntag, 30. November 2014, 21:54:09 schrieb Josselin Mouette: Le dimanche 30 novembre 2014 à 19:59 +0100, Martin Steigerwald a écrit : You complain about people blaming Debian, or more exactly Debian technical committee and GR decisions, for their decision to leave. Yes, it is anyone´s decision to leave. No one to blame for it. But that also works in the other direction. By no means anyone did force you to spend your time reading in this and replying to this thread. You decided to do so. Its your decision and there is no one to blame for it. No. Some people are abusing this forum dedicated to the *development of Debian* with off-topic bitter rants about decisions that are not going to be undone for jessie. They *are* forcing those who want to discuss the development of Debian to read this fecal matter instead. For the last time, I am kindly asking you to stop this. There is no way *on earth* I can force you to read this. I have no control over your behaviour. And I don´t even want to have this control. And thats it. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1515558.6sdQPNr2Ok@merkaba
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 01:32:22 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:02:06PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… I brought this upstream to no avail. OK, since this is a different forum, let me go over the reasons once again. The code paths in systemd which differ between --system and --user are relatively small. One part that is the table of paths where to load units from (/etc/systemd/system vs. /etc/systemd/user, /run/systemd/system vs $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/systemd/user, etc). Another part says (grossly simplyfying) if (--system !test_mode !virtualized_in_container()) setup_filesystems(); But those are just a few (important, but still) parts of the code. The majority, like the unit dependency logic, starting of processes, notifications from services, opening of sockets, watching of paths, etc, etc, are all shared. Actually systemd --user is probably closer to systemd --system running in a container than to systemd --system running on the host, because both run without full privileges and simply skip mounting of various things and other low-level setup. In this scenario it is natural to structure the code as a single binary that conditionalized parts of it logic as necessary. Thank you for your explaination. I do not agree, as it still seems to be done this way out of technical convenience. And I think thats not enough of a reason. And, in addition to that this is PID 1, not the usual application – and even there… in KDE / Plasma world developers are spending *a lot of energy* over the last years and still to separate out things which leads to KDE Frameworks 5, i.e. to specifically do things that aren´t convenient in the short run. However, some questions: So the systemd --user functionality does not add much to the binary size? And is the detection of the use case systemd binary runs in reliable? What additional failure cases for the necessary PID 1 functionality does combining these functionalities create? At least the logind stuff appears to be separate: Yes, logind does not share many high-level code paths with the systemd binary, so it is natural to keep them separate. OTOH, systemd and systemd-logind use the same primitives like string handling, configuration file parsing (including the logic of drop-in directories and /etc-overrides-/run-overrides-/usr/lib), and a bunch of other utility functions, which are provided by the shared systemd libraries, so it is much easier to develop them in a single repository. I hope this explains things. None of like string handling and configuration file parsing seems to be that special that it needs to be implemented (again?) just for systemd in my oppinion. The problem of INI file parsing has been solved before, the problem of string handling as well, a dozen of times maybe. Well, I hear your explaination and I value your point of view. I acknowledge it. Yet, I do not agree. So maybe at this time, we can just keep it at that. Especially as these are upstream decisions. But, in the end here it is about how Debian deals with upstream decisions like this, and I think here it is where the gross disagreements are. I personally would feel much more comfortable about systemd, if its upstream developers made the necessary work for modularization, cross platform portatibility and so on. Cause not doing so creates *additional* work and *codepaths* in other software as long as systemd provides functionality that other software would use like logind as ConsoleKit replacement. KDE and GNOME if to stay portable need several code paths for using systemd on Linux and something else elsewhere additional stuff, like the session handling things. Thus systemd pushes responsibility for platform adaptability upwards in the stack, and urges other systems to re-implement the same interfaces… without, actually having seeked any agreement on those with the BSD or Hurd folks. And that concerns me. Its a mechanism to offer new functionality with a new software (systemd), then try to convince others to use it, and then requiring all other platforms where systemd does not run to play catch up and use the same interfaces or try to port higher level application which rely on this functionality themselves. And I think I am perfectly able to proove this kind of behavior of systemd upstream by providing links. But enough of this, technical arguments have been made already. Let me try to move beyond that: Now, you can acknowledge my concern or not. But I think in either case it is healthy for me to accept you have or having explained a different oppinion (is it yours?). And healthy for you to accept that I have a different oppinion. I still do not see any solution for the concerns and polarity the way systemd upstream developers handle things like this
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes: Do you really think logind and systemd are the only pieces of C software that struggle with strings or config parsing? Those are definitely a couple of things that could be split out into a separate library so we all do not have to either (a) suffer through it, tediously writing another solution or (b) throw our software in systemd's git repo and use the same release cycle and license and all the other implications of being in the same repo (including not having commit access to your own software automatically). The config aspects especially so. It would be very positive if software knew they could just depend on a really simple library and get config parsing for basically free, since then users would eventually only have to know how to write one config format and software would only have to know how to read (parse) that same one. There already are libraries to do that. For example libconfuse. If you ask why not everyone (or systemd) uses them, the answer is the same as to why one cannot blame the systemd people for not refactoring their parser into a separate library: Everyone has different requirements of a config file format and having one for all is hardly feasible. Really, I have the feeling that once we start criticising that systemd does not factor out their config-file parsing into a stable and separately maintained library, we are really just grasping at straws in finding flaws with it. Best, Axel Wagner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx1iylht.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: […] Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. Is that “use” as in “if available” or is that actually “require and be sure to die unless provided”? (Please forgive my ignorance here, – my “desktop” runs Openbox ever since I’ve switched off TWM c. 2008, and I’m pretty sure that Openbox does not “use” Systemd or any related services.) The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. I believe that the word “init” is misleading at best in this context. The SysVinit-based system traditionally used in Debian was indeed /mostly/ concerned with bringing the system up – that is, “initing” the system. On the contrary, Systemd seems to try to also encompass monitoring, time synchronization, user sessions, and, I presume, a load of other tasks. If anything, it seems to deserve something like Master Control Program for its name, – not something as mundane as an “init system.” -- FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87a93aotd9@violet.siamics.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:51:56AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 01:32:22 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:02:06PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… I brought this upstream to no avail. OK, since this is a different forum, let me go over the reasons once again. The code paths in systemd which differ between --system and --user are relatively small. One part that is the table of paths where to load units from (/etc/systemd/system vs. /etc/systemd/user, /run/systemd/system vs $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/systemd/user, etc). Another part says (grossly simplyfying) if (--system !test_mode !virtualized_in_container()) setup_filesystems(); But those are just a few (important, but still) parts of the code. The majority, like the unit dependency logic, starting of processes, notifications from services, opening of sockets, watching of paths, etc, etc, are all shared. Actually systemd --user is probably closer to systemd --system running in a container than to systemd --system running on the host, because both run without full privileges and simply skip mounting of various things and other low-level setup. In this scenario it is natural to structure the code as a single binary that conditionalized parts of it logic as necessary. Thank you for your explaination. I do not agree, as it still seems to be done this way out of technical convenience. And I think thats not enough of a reason. And, in addition to that this is PID 1, not the usual application – and even there… in KDE / Plasma world developers are spending *a lot of energy* over the last years and still to separate out things which leads to KDE Frameworks 5, i.e. to specifically do things that aren´t convenient in the short run. Hi, you seam to treat technical convenience as something of not particular importance. But in software development technical convenience is often the thing that makes project that is finished in reasonable time and fun to work at and maintainable without tearing your hair out. You are essentially arguing that systemd developers (which includes me btw) should take upon themselves additional work to maintain stable APIs for internal components and also port systemd to other systems. The first one is quite a lot of work, but feasible. It would probably by less useful than you think though. The parts that are generally useful and stable, like journal client API, logind client API, some utilities that were in libsystemd-daemon, libsystemd-id128, are already provided as shared libraries. New dbus client library is also slated to become public when its ready and kdbus is upstreamed. Various dbus apis are documented and stable. The parts that remain are really internal and fast-changing stuff. I mentioned config file parsing and string handling - those are not general purpose functions, they support *systemd* config file syntax and are refactored and changed whenever it is useful for the rest of the code. It's true that they could be useful for other projects, but at a fairly heavy price. It would come in two installments: one, developers would have to diverge from work on new features, bug fixes, documentation, or whatever, and spend *a lot of energy* on this and the bugs it introduces by itself instead. And two, fixed API for low-level internal stuff would create a gorset and slow down systemd development. You could argue the same for the linux kernel, but Linus is pretty adamant about not providing a stable internal API. The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is Linux only. And the potential recepients, like BSD, don't seem to be interested anyway. So yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. However, some questions: So the systemd --user functionality does not add much to the binary size? And is the detection of the use case systemd binary runs in reliable? What additional failure cases for the necessary PID 1 functionality does combining these functionalities create? Detection is trivial: getpid() == 1. From the top of my head, I don't recall problems going in this direction. There were a few bugs the other way - where --user or --test modes would attempt to do more stuff then they should, because some part of the code was not properly conditionilized. At least the logind stuff appears to be separate: Yes, logind does not share many high-level code paths with the systemd binary, so it is natural to keep them separate. OTOH, systemd and systemd-logind use the same primitives like string handling, configuration file parsing (including the logic of drop-in directories and /etc-overrides-/run-overrides-/usr/lib), and a bunch of other utility functions, which are provided by the
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes: […] The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is Linux only. And the potential recepients, like BSD, don't seem to be interested anyway. Unless I be mistaken, that also /does/ mean Debian. That is: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd. Sorry for jumping into this discussion without any thorough reading, but I have mentioned this point a few times already at (other) mailing lists and on IRC, so if I got it wrong, I’d like to be corrected, so that I won’t spread confusion any further. […] -- FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761dxq2k7@violet.siamics.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +, Ivan Shmakov wrote: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes: […] The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is Linux only. And the potential recepients, like BSD, don't seem to be interested anyway. Unless I be mistaken, that also /does/ mean Debian. That is: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd. Yes, the technical reasons apply. The other reasons apply too, I think: /kFreeBSD and /Hurd ports are interested in staying close to their upstream projects and certainly don't have the manpower to take on systemd porting on their own. Sorry for jumping into this discussion without any thorough reading, but I have mentioned this point a few times already at (other) mailing lists and on IRC, so if I got it wrong, I’d like to be corrected, so that I won’t spread confusion any further. Please don't do that. Those threads are long enough already, without rehashing things which can be googled in 30s. Zbyszek FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A Ah, you're not really looking for answers. Why didn't you put that in a more visible place, and not in the footer so I only see it after writing a response? [A purely rhetorical question, no need to answer.] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141129192713.gc23...@in.waw.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 19:12 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:51:56AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 01:32:22 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: New dbus client library is also slated to become public when its ready and kdbus is upstreamed. Various dbus apis are documented and stable. Have you seen this? http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2014-11.html#e2014-11-23T09_26_01.txt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417289407.6826.5.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:27 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +, Ivan Shmakov wrote: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes: […] The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is Linux only. And the potential recepients, like BSD, don't seem to be interested anyway. Unless I be mistaken, that also /does/ mean Debian. That is: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd. Yes, the technical reasons apply. The other reasons apply too, I think: /kFreeBSD and /Hurd ports are interested in staying close to their upstream projects and certainly don't have the manpower to take on systemd porting on their own. Sorry for jumping into this discussion without any thorough reading, but I have mentioned this point a few times already at (other) mailing lists and on IRC, so if I got it wrong, I’d like to be corrected, so that I won’t spread confusion any further. Please don't do that. Those threads are long enough already, without rehashing things which can be googled in 30s. The best for kFreeBSD and Hurd would be to abandoning the Debian ship. It is sinking :( (just let the devuan people get things in order first) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417290209.6826.9.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes: Have you seen this? http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2014-11.html#e2014-11-23T09_26_01.txt I started reading and I just had to stop after the first few sentences, where the author quotes the specification clearly out of context to imply a contradiction that is not there (he first quotes a sentence describing dbus as a binary protocol and then quotes a sentence describing the authontication protocol (which is only a very small part of the dbus-protocol, though the quote does not show this part) as being text-only. Really classy). The author is obviously a troll of the worst kind and I hope you do not think that this is an even remotely credible source. Best, Axel Wagner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87mw79zt85.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:30:07PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 19:12 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:51:56AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 01:32:22 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: New dbus client library is also slated to become public when its ready and kdbus is upstreamed. Various dbus apis are documented and stable. Have you seen this? http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2014-11.html#e2014-11-23T09_26_01.txt I have, and I wasn't particularly impressed. The guy has trouble figuring out what LockSession(session) could possibly mean. He criticizes the spec (from 2003) for being hard to implement and then libsystemd-bus for implementing it. He also misses the fact that d-bus performance has very little to do with the overhead of 4 bytes in the message header, but rather the latency caused by multiple context switches, user space querying /proc to gather information, repeated decodings of a message as it is passed along, and the occasional transfer of large buffers. So yeah, it's an uninformed rant with a vaguely defined target. Zbyszek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141129194901.gd23...@in.waw.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 20:30:07 schrieb Svante Signell: On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 19:12 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:51:56AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 01:32:22 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski- Szmek: New dbus client library is also slated to become public when its ready and kdbus is upstreamed. Various dbus apis are documented and stable. Have you seen this? http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2014-11.html#e2014-11 -23T09_26_01.txt Oh, holy… this… isn´t… true? Is it? -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/24869919.e9fro6jZMz@merkaba
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de writes: Oh, holy… this… isn´t… true? Is it? No, it isn't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87iohxzsnc.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes: On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +, Ivan Shmakov wrote: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes: […] The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is Linux only. And the potential recepients, like BSD, don't seem to be interested anyway. Unless I be mistaken, that also /does/ mean Debian. That is: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd. Yes, the technical reasons apply. The other reasons apply too, I think: /kFreeBSD and /Hurd ports are interested in staying close to their upstream projects and certainly don't have the manpower to take on systemd porting on their own. My point is that Debian is bound to support non-Systemd installs as long as the two statements below remain true: • Debian supports non-Linux installs; • Systemd is Linux-only. And this is about the only thing about Systemd I do care of. (Curiously, from this point of view, being only available for Linux is actually the Systemd feature of most importance to me.) As for Systemd being the default (on Debian GNU/Linux, specifically), – I guess I shouldn’t bother. GNOME is also the default, but I cannot readily recall ever having it running on my Debian installs. […] -- FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tolpz7z@violet.siamics.net
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Martin Steigerwald: Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 22:30:15 schrieb Vincent Bernat: ❦ 27 novembre 2014 22:02 +0100, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de : And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… Wild guess: because it manages processes like PID 1? That kind of exchange isn´t productive You mean the wild guess part? Yes, it's not, but you have to admit that I wonder why systemd --user is the same binary as systemd --system kindof asks for that kind of response – after all, the answer should be obvious; it's not as if we started discussing what systemd does (and how) yesterday. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 08:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 27 novembre 2014 à 21:29 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:19:14 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. The official name of the Debian fork is devuan: https://devuan.org It will be interesting to see how many Debian Maintainers and Developers will jump the ship and join them (in addition to the users). Future will tell... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417164192.11764.382.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Marc Haber: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:53:18 +0100, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. So using that instead of rolling your own from scratch is simply common sense. It would be common sense to move the shared code to a library. That shared piece of code needs to either run in only one process, or coordinate with other copies of itself (if any). The systemd people decided on the first option, and on using dbus to tell the one copy that's running in PID-1 what to do. Works for me. (Except for the fact that the dbus API between systemd and logind should be public – but given the changes that interface has seen lately, a freeze would have been premature, and systemd-shim wasn't on the horizon then.) If you want to convince the systemd people to split that part of systemd- -as-pid1 off to a separate library, and/or to properly version that API, you should submit an appropriate patch – but I don't think that telling _them_ to do work that's outside their usecase is reasonable. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote: It will be interesting to see how many Debian Maintainers and Developers will jump the ship and join them (in addition to the users). Future will I’ll tell you in the present. Github? Ugh! http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/free-software-needs-free-tools The rest is just as bad (mailinglists hosted somewhere in the wild too, etc). And the website is illegible, and I curiously wonder who is behind all that. But mostly rhetorically, as I’m not really interested… bye, //mirabilos -- 15:41⎜Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1411281329280.10...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 28.11.2014 09:43, Svante Signell wrote: The official name of the Debian fork is devuan: https://devuan.org It will be interesting to see how many Debian Maintainers and Developers will jump the ship and join them (in addition to the users). Future will tell... Well, not me. While the situation sucks for embedded systems, I doubt this project will gain sufficient traction to provide a better alternative, so the result is basically going back to square one and providing the necessary tools for embedded system development from emdebian.org. Simon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iJwEAQECAAYFAlR4cmYACgkQ0sfeulffv7vPKwP+LfoVtVuR9tscjavkpP86A3lL 0ep9JouCVcKir/IYfL4Yl/hpmwMtqerak7KqhGvfLrPogB1VV19oBCC/pU0Cxr8e ud9CNY7J422dUocr7cD0FEFF7PrRrZHCQ7Jx+v+/y4WmeTg1p/5UGlGuPtEHn5ht PRVzMQFmvGfUAX74FyA= =q5r6 -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: https://lists.debian.org/54787270.9000...@debian.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 13:48 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote: It will be interesting to see how many Debian Maintainers and Developers will jump the ship and join them (in addition to the users). Future will I’ll tell you in the present. Github? Ugh! http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/free-software-needs-free-tools The rest is just as bad (mailinglists hosted somewhere in the wild too, etc). And the website is illegible, and I curiously wonder who is behind all that. But mostly rhetorically, as I’m not really interested… (about devuan) This has just started, give them some time, please. From a comment on the thread about upgrades (that don't belong to the ctte bugs): https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg01265.html Do note that new installs of kFreeBSD and Hurd should not get systemd, but what exactly is probably up to the porters for lack of a CTTE decision in that. Maybe it would be a better place for the non-linux debian-ports to be hosted by devuan (they are currently not release candidates for Jessie): If Debian ditch all non-linux ports, that would make life easier for all DMs and DDS: - no non-linux ports needing other any init than systemd, remove alternatives - no requirement for portable code upstream, previously forwarded by DMs and/or bug reporters. - no annoying bug reports for patches addressing portability, see above (mostly ignored anyway). - ditch all other desktop systems, just go with Gnome - etc - based on the above, plenty of packages could be removed, etc BTW: why not rename Debian 8 Jessie to Debian Lendows(tm) 1, and perhaps the whole distribution (Lindows was acquired by M$, that name is taken already) Note, I'm just kidding, or? Is the Universal OS ship sinking? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417188308.11764.444.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote: Github? Ugh! http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/free-software-needs-free-tools This has just started, give them some time, please. No. If they even consider things like this, there is something seriously wrong right in the beginning. Maybe it would be a better place for the non-linux debian-ports to be hosted by devuan (they are currently not release candidates for Jessie): No. There’s always debian-ports, which I’m told is moving closer to Debian itself, but for now, keeping those who already are there in Debian unstable itself is better. If Debian ditch all non-linux ports, that would make life easier for all DMs and DDS: - no non-linux ports needing other any init than systemd, remove alternatives […] Uhm… that is not a good idea. Hey, there are *still* bugs found because of s390 (not s390x). Portability and variety is g̲o̲o̲d̲! bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1411281638380.10...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
The mailinglist of Devuan is not hosted elsewhere - it's hosted on the infrastructure of another GNU/Linux Distribution. Just call dyne.org in the browser ... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:20:22 +0100, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: If you want to convince the systemd people to split that part of systemd- -as-pid1 off to a separate library, and/or to properly version that API, you should submit an appropriate patch You see, I have been an architect and a sysadmin for almost 20 years. That means that I have a pretty clear image about how I want my systems to look like and how I want to be able to run my system. That does not mean that I am able to provide a patch to coax any piece of software into doing what I want it to do. That's a developer's job. And even acknowledging those facts does not take away my privilege of voicing my opinion about how I want my systems to look like and how I want to be able to run my system. I became a member of Debian thirteen years ago[1] to be able to bring some of my ideas into Debian proper. It's not that anybody needs to listen, but nobody is going to tell me to shut up just because I only know how the result of a job should look like without being able to do the job myself. Greetings Marc [1] yes, and I know that you were already around when I arrived -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xupsw-0002yu...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:25:46 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Would you stop using (random example) apache if it started shipping with some often-useful CGI scripts? I am pretty sure that the apache people would include them with a way to disable them just in case one does not want them. And I am also pretty sure that they would not de-implement the Common Gateway Interface just because people still like to run vulnerable Matt Wright Scripts from 2002. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xupus-0002za...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:45:29 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: There is nothing in the FUD that’s still being spread that hasn’t been entirely debunked almost a year ago in https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd I have nothing to add to what we wrote at that time. And I’m tired of people rehashing the same crap just because they can’t admit they have been wrong. Systemd is here in jessie, the world didn’t fall down like you predicted, and those “bitter rearguard battles” Ian warned us about only achieve a single goal: pissing people off, including three of those who made this possible by their tireless work. This is nothing short of bullying. If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. Your way of communicating is hurting people as usual. Please stop. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xupvt-0002zi...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 19:05 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: And I am also pretty sure that they would not de-implement the Common Gateway Interface just because people still like to run vulnerable Matt Wright Scripts from 2002. For many things, CGI is actually the only way to run them securely, since it's the only way to run foreign processes in a container environment (chroots, etc.) or with user privilege separation. The poor man alternatives like mod-php5 are nothing which a security conscious admin would ever use. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: Your way of communicating is hurting people as usual. Please stop. I respectfully disagree. There was imho nothing in the quoted message that would warrant a reaction like this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wq6fyxb2.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:03:14PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: It's not that anybody needs to listen, but nobody is going to tell me to shut up just because I only know how the result of a job should look like without being able to do the job myself. Having a detailed discussion about how systemd should be developed on debian-devel could get a little bit tiring for some though. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141128192412.gc25...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Hey, there are *still* bugs found because of s390 (not s390x). Uhm. s390x is 64bit BE; ppc64 and sparc64 never made it into the archive. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:25:46 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Would you stop using (random example) apache if it started shipping with some often-useful CGI scripts? I am pretty sure that the apache people would include them with a way to disable them just in case one does not want them. So what? You can also use systemd without using the tools for NTP, network configuration, or the journal. Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx1j2hp8@vostro.rath.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014, 09:28:39 schrieb Matthias Urlichs: Hi, Martin Steigerwald: Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 22:30:15 schrieb Vincent Bernat: ❦ 27 novembre 2014 22:02 +0100, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de : And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… Wild guess: because it manages processes like PID 1? That kind of exchange isn´t productive You mean the wild guess part? Yes, it's not, but you have to admit that I wonder why systemd --user is the same binary as systemd --system kindof asks for that kind of response – after all, the answer should be obvious; it's not as if we started discussing what systemd does (and how) yesterday. Well, it doesn´t get any more productive. And if you read and understand one of my previous posts it would be obvious *why*. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:28:19 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:25:46 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Would you stop using (random example) apache if it started shipping with some often-useful CGI scripts? I am pretty sure that the apache people would include them with a way to disable them just in case one does not want them. So what? You can also use systemd without using the tools for NTP, network configuration, or the journal. Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xusz6-0004ls...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? Much easier. Note that if you want GNOME without systemd, it required actual effort instead of doing petty jabs on mailing lists. Actual effort was done amongst others the developers of systemd-shim. Currently not having systemd and use GNOME is quite easy on Debian. -- Regards, Olav (GNOME release team) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141128213622.gd25...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:36:22PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? Much easier. Note that if you want GNOME without systemd, it required actual effort instead of doing petty jabs on mailing lists. Actual effort was done amongst others the developers of systemd-shim. Currently not having systemd and use GNOME is quite easy on Debian. Uh? gnome-settings-daemon → libpam-systemd → systemd (There's more to systemd than just pid 1.) -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141128222911.ga10...@angband.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
2014-11-28 23:29 GMT+01:00 Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:36:22PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? Much easier. Note that if you want GNOME without systemd, it required actual effort instead of doing petty jabs on mailing lists. Actual effort was done amongst others the developers of systemd-shim. Currently not having systemd and use GNOME is quite easy on Debian. Uh? gnome-settings-daemon → libpam-systemd → systemd (There's more to systemd than just pid 1.) I think he meant systemd, the PID 1 specifically here. As for the other parts: You couldn't have GNOME without ConsoleKit or GTK+ before either... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caknhny9qf1kuvn1o6jhafxrdrgbjsq344nrv37tdmauw7se...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:28:19 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:25:46 -0800, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Would you stop using (random example) apache if it started shipping with some often-useful CGI scripts? I am pretty sure that the apache people would include them with a way to disable them just in case one does not want them. So what? You can also use systemd without using the tools for NTP, network configuration, or the journal. Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? Much easier, the comparison does not really make sense. Running systemd without the extra tools is about as easy as running systemd without Gnome. Best, Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3wm3mhx@vostro.rath.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:02:06PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… I brought this upstream to no avail. OK, since this is a different forum, let me go over the reasons once again. The code paths in systemd which differ between --system and --user are relatively small. One part that is the table of paths where to load units from (/etc/systemd/system vs. /etc/systemd/user, /run/systemd/system vs $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/systemd/user, etc). Another part says (grossly simplyfying) if (--system !test_mode !virtualized_in_container()) setup_filesystems(); But those are just a few (important, but still) parts of the code. The majority, like the unit dependency logic, starting of processes, notifications from services, opening of sockets, watching of paths, etc, etc, are all shared. Actually systemd --user is probably closer to systemd --system running in a container than to systemd --system running on the host, because both run without full privileges and simply skip mounting of various things and other low-level setup. In this scenario it is natural to structure the code as a single binary that conditionalized parts of it logic as necessary. At least the logind stuff appears to be separate: Yes, logind does not share many high-level code paths with the systemd binary, so it is natural to keep them separate. OTOH, systemd and systemd-logind use the same primitives like string handling, configuration file parsing (including the logic of drop-in directories and /etc-overrides-/run-overrides-/usr/lib), and a bunch of other utility functions, which are provided by the shared systemd libraries, so it is much easier to develop them in a single repository. I hope this explains things. Zbyszek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141129003222.gh12...@in.waw.pl
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:02:06PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… I brought this upstream to no avail. OK, since this is a different forum, let me go over the reasons once again. The code paths in systemd which differ between --system and --user are relatively small. [snip] The majority, like the unit dependency logic, starting of processes, notifications from services, opening of sockets, watching of paths, etc, etc, are all shared. Actually systemd --user is probably closer to systemd --system running in a container than to systemd --system running on the host, because both run without full privileges and simply skip mounting of various things and other low-level setup. In this scenario it is natural to structure the code as a single binary that conditionalized parts of it logic as necessary. +1 At least the logind stuff appears to be separate: Yes, logind does not share many high-level code paths with the systemd binary, so it is natural to keep them separate. OTOH, systemd and systemd-logind use the same primitives like string handling, configuration file parsing (including the logic of drop-in directories and /etc-overrides-/run-overrides-/usr/lib), and a bunch of other utility functions, which are provided by the shared systemd libraries, so it is much easier to develop them in a single repository. Do you really think logind and systemd are the only pieces of C software that struggle with strings or config parsing? Those are definitely a couple of things that could be split out into a separate library so we all do not have to either (a) suffer through it, tediously writing another solution or (b) throw our software in systemd's git repo and use the same release cycle and license and all the other implications of being in the same repo (including not having commit access to your own software automatically). The config aspects especially so. It would be very positive if software knew they could just depend on a really simple library and get config parsing for basically free, since then users would eventually only have to know how to write one config format and software would only have to know how to read (parse) that same one. I do not know why I am discussing this here though, haha. Cheers, -- Cameron Norman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CALZWFRJu892a xx8auf+epvnggs2bts10fg4xkuqfoeof...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 23:49:58 +0100, Matthias Klumpp matth...@tenstral.net wrote: I think he meant systemd, the PID 1 specifically here. No. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xuc3j-0005ub...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
❦ 28 novembre 2014 22:21 +0100, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de : So what? You can also use systemd without using the tools for NTP, network configuration, or the journal. Is that as easy as running current GNOME without systemd, which is surely possible? systemd-timesyncd and systemd-networkd are disabled by default, at least in Debian. You can disable systemd-journald as well if you wish. -- Make sure comments and code agree. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plauger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 01:19:14 schrieb Josselin Mouette: Le mercredi 26 novembre 2014 à 16:05 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : And many of us who actually *are* Debian server administrators have said repeatedly that your gut is wrong, in the innumerable versions of this conversation that have happened over the past two years. This idea that systemd is somehow aimed at desktop environments and is not useful or a good idea for servers is complete nonsense. Yes, yes, and yes. This needs to be put in a frame and bashed in the head of anyone who keeps repeating that systemd is about GNOME. Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. I still wonder why there are provided within systemd then. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1750346.PdfvUZja1x@merkaba
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Martin Steigerwald: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. I still wonder why there are provided within systemd then. Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. So using that instead of rolling your own from scratch is simply common sense. A second implementation also would require coordination between systemd and whatever, therefore requiring yet more code. More man-hours to write and debug. NB: s/there/they/. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141127105318.ga18...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am 27.11.2014 um 01:19 schrieb Josselin Mouette: Yes, yes, and yes. This needs to be put in a frame and bashed in the head of anyone who keeps repeating that systemd is about GNOME. What about the idea of being mindful of the tone of your conversation and keeping it conciously moderate, Josselin? When you are asking for something to be bashed in the head of people other than you, then I think it is trivial to understand that you are setting the response to be of the same tone with respect to agressivity and intollerance. That kind of tone will evidently not contribute to keeping the conversation constructive. If there's something to be learned from the mailing list traffic here then it seems crystal clear to me that the *way* people interact with each other is *the* determining factor of the future of Debian as a project. You must accept that there will be different opinions never mind how stupid they are. If you react with violence and bash people on their heads then that might work for small, fearful minorities, which you will beat out of the project or into silence. But it will not work in a situation like this, where a large and strong part of the project has a different oppinion than you. Technical correctnes and excellence and correct and excellent interaction are conditions sine non qua for a good and excellent project and product. All of these are of course platitudes that you, being a brilliant mind, have no problem to understand. Therefore I want to suggest to you to please to take one step back before pressing reply and to choose the words that you are using here in conversations conciously. *t -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5477053b.4000...@sourcepole.ch
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 11:53:18 schrieb Matthias Urlichs: Hi, Hi Matthias, Martin Steigerwald: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. I still wonder why there are provided within systemd then. Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. So using that instead of rolling your own from scratch is simply common sense. A second implementation also would require coordination between systemd and whatever, therefore requiring yet more code. More man-hours to write and debug. But I think for most of the people that dislike systemd this is the main concern: systemd is a lot of system building blocks in *one* repository and *one* debian package and while they may be separatable they are not separated. But well, its an upstream topic and I actually tried to bring this upstream, but didn´t seem to be able to bring my point across without getting touchy responses and even personal attacks from the very same people that complained about being personally attacked themselves including, but not limited to Lennart himself, while I at least *tried* to stay away from personal attacks. But while I do not agree with personal attacks I think as long as upstream handles things they way the do they will continue to get the responses they get. But if you just limit your discussion to technical convenience there is no ground to discuss these things and actually get to an agreement. I learned that before I unsubscribed myself from systemd-devel again to *protect myself*. So while I do not see it as black or white, systemd has its advantages, I would need to put both hands before my eyes not to see that, the way upstream and some avid supports of it in Debian deal with the concerns it raises does not seem to be well suited for actually *addressing* those concerns. And this will remain the case as long as technical convenience is the only discussable item here. As long as its all in one big package cause, as according to the responses I got on systemd-devel, it is technically *convenient* and *easier* to develop. That does no good to address these concerns I think. Cause: Technical *convenient* is not necessarely technical *best*. Splitting things may be work… but developers still do it and I think *for good reasons*. Cause, I think part of the issues are *social* issues with the *way* upstream handles concerns and user feedback. Acting in a certain way triggers certain results and I think it is very important that at some point upstream developers and avid systemd supporters within Debian project ask themselves the question: Why do I get *that much* resistance? What, *at the core of it* is the reason behind that resistance? And no… its not all people resisting for the sake of resisting in my oppinion. Of course, also those resisting systemd can benefit from asking themselves: Why do I actually resist systemd? What real issues does it actually cause me? What is the real issue I actually have? And how can I address it? That said, systemd has been discussed to an extent that I never saw *anything* in Debian discussed ever before… so I myself decided to wait a bit what comes out of it. Despite my concerns, so far systemd runs stable on mail laptop, the workstation at work and music laptop and reliably. It still find strange behavior from time to time that I report, like just yesterday changing MAC addresses on eth0 on every disconnect, but this may also be Network Manager doing this (also reported already). But so or so: if systemd fails on technical terms I am pretty sure, Debian developers can adapt and replace the default init system again if need be. So while I have my own share of technical concerns I am more concerned with the social and emotional responses systemd adoption in Debian triggers. As there I see the real danger for the project. And yes, I am concerned about it. Big time. I am still confident that Debian as a community will get through it, but as far as I have seen so far it has been a very rough ride. But for addressing it, for healing what obviously seems to be hurt it is actually absolutely necessary that everyone starts with oneself, cause just attacking each other with accusation will just cause more attacks, more accusation, more frustration, more people leaving. I for myself will no be very strict regarding any technical things I see. I am determined to report any bug with systemd I find. It is under high scrutiny on my systems. For me it still has to prove itself. I don´t take its reliability, stability and well behaving for granted. But that is it… … not much point to discuss here further… without addressing whats really behind the concerns of those who resist systemd and the frustrations of those in
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Martin Steigerwald: But I think for most of the people that dislike systemd this is the main concern: systemd is a lot of system building blocks in *one* repository and *one* debian package and while they may be separatable they are not separated. But well, its an upstream topic and I actually tried to bring this upstream, but didn´t seem to be able to bring my point across What exactly _is_ the point? It's one git repository instead of five, but what (technical) problem would having five repos and five Debian source packages, instead of one, actually solve? IMHO: None at all. Instead it creates busy-work, and a testing headache because you can't depend on a definite version of $OTHER_BINARY any more. There are obviously social problems with merging systemd and udev into one repository, and with having systemd and logind (and/or a couple of other helpers) there. We're seeing them; it's one of the major complaints about systemd. But it's Upstream's decision to do that. Absent a reasonable technical argument, I can understand that LennartCo get extremely impatient with having to re-hash the same old non-argument for the umpteenth time, even if not everybody actually gives them flak about it. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141127132801.gb18...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 14:28:01 schrieb Matthias Urlichs: Martin Steigerwald: But I think for most of the people that dislike systemd this is the main concern: systemd is a lot of system building blocks in *one* repository and *one* debian package and while they may be separatable they are not separated. But well, its an upstream topic and I actually tried to bring this upstream, but didn´t seem to be able to bring my point across What exactly _is_ the point? It's one git repository instead of five, but what (technical) problem would having five repos and five Debian source packages, instead of one, actually solve? IMHO: None at all. Instead it creates busy-work, and a testing headache because you can't depend on a definite version of $OTHER_BINARY any more. That is *your* oppinion. And thats it. Others are *perfectly* entitled to have *different* oppinions about this. And that… There are obviously social problems with merging systemd and udev into one repository, and with having systemd and logind (and/or a couple of other helpers) there. We're seeing them; it's one of the major complaints about systemd. But it's Upstream's decision to do that. Absent a reasonable technical argument, I can understand that LennartCo get extremely impatient with having to re-hash the same old non-argument for the umpteenth time, even if not everybody actually gives them flak about it. … proves the point I was trying to make *exactly*: As long as there is no willingness of upstream to actually deal with these concerns at the level they are raised – which is beyond technical convenience - and as long as those having those concerns do not find a different way to deal with them as to express them without doing much more about them and as long any of the both party have any energy to go on with this, it will go on like this. But it also proves that it makes no sense to even continue on this here now: I made my point. Take it, or leave it. Be upset with it, or not. I made my point and I stand by it. If I created the same outcome, which is resistance in the case of systemd upstream developers, again and again and again and again, I´d ask myself What is going on here?. If I created the same outcome in the way how I voice my concerns, I´d ask myself the same. Which isn´t happening here at the moment. On neither side. I just wanted to raise this. Take it, or leave it. But if you continue complaining about the outcome… the one and only place where I can change the outcomes I see is myself. You can´t change me who simply messages this point, I can´t change your or the way you write your mails. The ones who resist systemd and the ones who resist systemd can´t change systemd upstream developers. *** So for a change it is required that at one point one starts to look within oneself for a change. *** A first step would be to acknowledge for the different viewpoints. For the systemd developers and supporters to acknowledge for the concerns *whether they agree with them or not*. For the concerned ones to acknowledge for the design and development decisions of systemd upstream *whether they agree with them or not*. I don´t see this happening so far. And this is why people bring this up again, again, again and again. As long as one oppinion is the right one, and the other is the wrong one, this will continue. As soon as different viewpoints become just that – different viewpoints – in the minds of the involved ones, a change can happen. So the real question here is: How long will any of the involved ones continue to create the same outcome over and over and over again? When is the first of the involved human being in this conflict ready to try something different? When are others willing to agree with trying something different? Or when are enough involved beings at least willing to pause spending energy on this any longer to let it rest for a while – and see whether this can facilitate a change in viewpoints due to calming down. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1619179.66hm6iClCL@merkaba
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Martin Steigerwald: What exactly _is_ the point? It's one git repository instead of five, but what (technical) problem would having five repos and five Debian source packages, instead of one, actually solve? IMHO: None at all. Instead it creates busy-work, and a testing headache because you can't depend on a definite version of $OTHER_BINARY any more. That is *your* oppinion. And thats it. Others are *perfectly* entitled to have *different* oppinions about this. I did not dispute that others are entitled to their opinions. But if all they have is an opinion, with no attempt to convey their reasoning to the other side (as you are doing now), then said other side is (equally perfectly) entitled to disagree. Unfortunately, that does not always help. As we see … -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141127151828.gc18...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:19:14 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. Why does it initialize the network, provide an NTP implementation and a radically new logging subsystem then? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xu5h6-0007gz...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:53:18 +0100, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: Yes, the logind-related parte _could_ be provided elsewhere, but part of the features logind needs is already implemented in systemd. So using that instead of rolling your own from scratch is simply common sense. It would be common sense to move the shared code to a library. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xu5hp-0007gp...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 21:29:40 schrieb Marc Haber: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:19:14 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. Why does it initialize the network, provide an NTP implementation and a radically new logging subsystem then? Cause it isn´t an init system I thought and read somewhere, but a collection of system building blocks (all in one repo and package), but the homepage still says: systemd is a system and service manager for Linux, compatible with SysV and LSB init scripts. http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ But well, a system manager is a quite broad term. system managing can be about anything really. And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… I brought this upstream to no avail. At least the logind stuff appears to be separate: merkaba:~ ps -eo pid,cmd ax | grep [s]ystemd 1 /bin/systemd 296 /lib/systemd/systemd-journald 307 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd 1121 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind 1171 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile -- systemd-activation 1815 /lib/systemd/systemd --user But again, all upstream decisions. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/22499172.fj1IF3kO1J@merkaba
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
❦ 27 novembre 2014 22:02 +0100, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de : And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… Wild guess: because it manages processes like PID 1? -- /* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */ 2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes: On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:19:14 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. Why does it initialize the network, provide an NTP implementation and a radically new logging subsystem then? In my opinion the fact that it does ship these things *too* is not in conflict with the stated primary purpose. Would you stop using (random example) apache if it started shipping with some often-useful CGI scripts? Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877fyg8emt@vostro.rath.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 22:30:15 schrieb Vincent Bernat: ❦ 27 novembre 2014 22:02 +0100, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de : And well, I also wonder why systemd --user functionality is in the *same* binary than the PID 1 stuff… but well… Wild guess: because it manages processes like PID 1? That kind of exchange isn´t productive and I explained why already, so I will stop this here. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
It took me time to realize why writing the below didn't feel right in some uneasy way. That's because, allthough being logically completely correct (I boldly assert here...), what I wrote below completely misses the essence and is therefor just bullshit, which we can have a good laugh about. And that actually *does* expresses the essence: we _should_ be laughing! So, dear Josselin, sorry for confronting you with that nonsense, I hope you can chuckle about it gleefully! *t Am 27.11.2014 um 12:04 schrieb Tomas Pospisek: Am 27.11.2014 um 01:19 schrieb Josselin Mouette: Yes, yes, and yes. This needs to be put in a frame and bashed in the head of anyone who keeps repeating that systemd is about GNOME. What about the idea of being mindful of the tone of your conversation and keeping it conciously moderate, Josselin? When you are asking for something to be bashed in the head of people other than you, then I think it is trivial to understand that you are setting the response to be of the same tone with respect to agressivity and intollerance. That kind of tone will evidently not contribute to keeping the conversation constructive. If there's something to be learned from the mailing list traffic here then it seems crystal clear to me that the *way* people interact with each other is *the* determining factor of the future of Debian as a project. You must accept that there will be different opinions never mind how stupid they are. If you react with violence and bash people on their heads then that might work for small, fearful minorities, which you will beat out of the project or into silence. But it will not work in a situation like this, where a large and strong part of the project has a different oppinion than you. Technical correctnes and excellence and correct and excellent interaction are conditions sine non qua for a good and excellent project and product. All of these are of course platitudes that you, being a brilliant mind, have no problem to understand. Therefore I want to suggest to you to please to take one step back before pressing reply and to choose the words that you are using here in conversations conciously. *t -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5477cbd9.10...@sourcepole.ch
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Le jeudi 27 novembre 2014 à 21:29 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:19:14 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. Why does it initialize the network, provide an NTP implementation and a radically new logging subsystem then? There is nothing in the FUD that’s still being spread that hasn’t been entirely debunked almost a year ago in https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd I have nothing to add to what we wrote at that time. And I’m tired of people rehashing the same crap just because they can’t admit they have been wrong. Systemd is here in jessie, the world didn’t fall down like you predicted, and those “bitter rearguard battles” Ian warned us about only achieve a single goal: pissing people off, including three of those who made this possible by their tireless work. This is nothing short of bullying. If you want to help our users, you can contribute to debianfork, or you can improve your packages in Debian. But spreading your bitterness on development forums is only about hurting people. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417160729.3187.1.ca...@debian.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Wednesday, 26 de November de 2014 02:23:20 Paul Wise escribió: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Noel Torres wrote: Who our users are? Debian's users are the set of people and organisations who use Debian. Exactly. Who they are? The people who chose Debian, are they laptop users? desktop users? sysadmins? The question is important. That is changing every day as people discover Debian, discover other systems they like better, discover something about Debian they don't like, try a system that is new etc. Since there are no monetary or other restrictions on downloading and installing Debian, we can't know the exact set of people and organisations who use Debian but there are some indicators of who they are (see below). But we can have estimates. popcon gives us 98681 installations of libgnomevfs2-common (which may indicate desktop or laptop users) and 96647 installations of apache2.2-bin (which may indicate server users). Not a big difference. I expect you don't actually want to know who uses Debian but who the people involved in Debian want or don't want to be using Debian. Debian's motto has been The Universal Operating System for a long time and Debian folks often talk of world-domination; I think it is safe to say that Debian folks want Debian to be used by everyone, including those who have a particular preference of init systems. I'm sorry but you're wrong here. I actually want to know who uses Debian, not which groups are better suited to the desires of some contraposed groups of developers. Here are the set of Debian contributors, presumably most of them use Debian in some capacity: https://contributors.debian.org/ Here are some examples of organisations using Debian: https://www.debian.org/users/ Here are some indicators of how many systems run Debian: http://popcon.debian.org/ http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-debian/all/all http://linuxcounter.net/distributions/stats.html http://linuxcounter.net/distribution/Debian+GNU_S_Linux.html https://wiki.debian.org/Statistics#mirrors I already know these. The question is not how many are there but who they are. It is great to know that we have millions of users, but who are they? Specifically, are these machines servers or desktops/laptops? The question is important because most of the distribution about switching to systemd by default has been centered about the important questions of technical feasibility, manpower required to maintain a distribution with more than one init system widey installed, manpower to perform the required changes to support multiple init systems in Jessie, and so on, but it has not been centered about the most important question: our users. It is a gut feeling, one that I share with systemd proponents, that Debian's desktop experience will be better for our users with systemd. It is a gut feeling also, and one that has been widely expresed by others, (with better and worse words) that Debian server admins will not be pleased with an init system which is bigger and does not use shell scripts to start system services. Inconveniences have been stated about binary logs (which has been expressed that it is not true), big binary, tightly related set of binaries, security relying in developers and packagers and not sysadmins, encompassing of not-init-related services, and more. So to know which of these two approachs is better for our users, which is what our Social Contract, 4, impose on us, we need to know who our users are. Without knowing that, we can not be true in deciding about switching or not on upgrades to best serve our users. Regards Noel Torres er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Hi, Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: It is a gut feeling, one that I share with systemd proponents, that Debian's desktop experience will be better for our users with systemd. It is a gut feeling also, and one that has been widely expresed by others, (with better and worse words) that Debian server admins will not be pleased with an init system which is bigger and does not use shell scripts to start system services. Inconveniences have been stated about binary logs (which has been expressed that it is not true), big binary, tightly related set of binaries, security relying in developers and packagers and not sysadmins, encompassing of not-init-related services, and more. Once again, I am asking for numbers. I refuse to believe this narrative, that systemd is somehow (widely viewed as) taylored to the needs of the desktop on the cost of the needs of a server, no matter how often it is repeated, unless someone offers some at least rough data on this (for example the results of a survey, trying to correlate I administrate mainly/a lot of servers vs. I administrate mainly laptops with I think systemd is bad for the desktop/server usecase). Because there has been a lot of testaments towards the benefit of systemd for servers too and that totally fits my own impressions. I couldn't care less for it's use in a DE, I don't use a DE. What I *do* care about is it's use in servers, which I view as the *main* beneficiaries of systemd. So please, before we keep rehashing this narrative and letting it become widely believed (and thus self-fulfilling): Show me some data. Anything (Okay, not anything. Quoting for example number of mailing-list posts or reddit/SO-answers is *not* good data). The question about what use-cases our users care about only matters, if we accept this underlying assumption, that systemd is good for one but actively bad for the other. Oh and of course: meh. systemd-flamewar. *Exactly* what we need… Best, Axel Wagner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/878uix1psg.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: It is a gut feeling also, and one that has been widely expresed by others, (with better and worse words) that Debian server admins will not be pleased with an init system which is bigger and does not use shell scripts to start system services. And many of us who actually *are* Debian server administrators have said repeatedly that your gut is wrong, in the innumerable versions of this conversation that have happened over the past two years. This idea that systemd is somehow aimed at desktop environments and is not useful or a good idea for servers is complete nonsense. I say this as someone who barely uses desktops at all and who has been running large-scale server environments professionally for twenty years, and who has had extensive conversations on this topic with professional colleagues in environments ranging from a hundred servers to hundreds of thousands. Obviously, there are some server administrators who disagree with me, just like there are some desktop users who don't like systemd, and some embedded developers who don't like systemd (and others who love it and think it will help their work immensely). The opinions about systemd do not at all break along the lines that you have imagined. Given that, could you please stop trying to divide Debian's users into artificial opposing camps, and then trying to play those camps off against each other? I really don't think that Debian needs yet more attempts at forming in-groups and out-groups and excluding people based on what they use Debian to do. The decision about the default init system to use for Debian was made with an eye to *all* of Debian's users and all of their varying use cases. You are certainly entitled to disagree with that decision on its merits, but if you're going to claim that it was made solely for desktop users while ignoring server administrators or embedded users, directly contradicting the statements of the people who were actually involved in that decision-making process, you're going to need some really good evidence to back up that assertion. Not just a gut feeling. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/87zjbd33to@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Le mercredi 26 novembre 2014 à 16:05 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : And many of us who actually *are* Debian server administrators have said repeatedly that your gut is wrong, in the innumerable versions of this conversation that have happened over the past two years. This idea that systemd is somehow aimed at desktop environments and is not useful or a good idea for servers is complete nonsense. Yes, yes, and yes. This needs to be put in a frame and bashed in the head of anyone who keeps repeating that systemd is about GNOME. Desktops (not only GNOME) use a very tiny bit of systemd, interfaces that could be provided elsewhere. The real purpose of systemd is to provide a modern init system. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1417047554.17080.2.ca...@kagura.malsain.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:05:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: It is a gut feeling also, and one that has been widely expresed by others, (with better and worse words) that Debian server admins will not be pleased with an init system which is bigger and does not use shell scripts to start system services. And many of us who actually *are* Debian server administrators have said repeatedly that your gut is wrong, in the innumerable versions of this conversation that have happened over the past two years. This idea that systemd is somehow aimed at desktop environments and is not useful or a good idea for servers is complete nonsense. I say this as someone who barely uses desktops at all and who has been running large-scale server environments professionally for twenty years, and who has had extensive conversations on this topic with professional colleagues in environments ranging from a hundred servers to hundreds of thousands. Indeed and even FreeBSD acknowledges that they need a new init. I often see the oponents of sytemd touting the BSDs. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mri66Uz6-8Y#t=1643 John Hubbard talking about how an approach like systemd is needed on FreeBSD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141127002808.GA6801@stephen-desktop
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Russ Allbery's response already refuted the general approach of attempting to create artificial divisiveness between Debian users, but in addition to that, I'd like to refute a specific bit of misinformation from this mail: Noel Torres wrote: But we can have estimates. popcon gives us 98681 installations of libgnomevfs2-common (which may indicate desktop or laptop users) and 96647 installations of apache2.2-bin (which may indicate server users). Not a big difference. gnome Depends: gnome-core, which Depends: gnome-user-share, which Depends: apache2-bin (or apache2.2-bin in stable, which is a transitional package depending on apache2-bin in unstable). - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141127011851.GA2712@thin
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Every Desktop-user who has a printer also needs a webserver since CUPS has its own webinterface ... ;) Am 27.11.2014 um 02:18 schrieb Josh Triplett: gnome Depends: gnome-core, which Depends: gnome-user-share, which Depends: apache2-bin (or apache2.2-bin in stable, which is a transitional package depending on apache2-bin in unstable). - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes: gnome Depends: gnome-core, which Depends: gnome-user-share, which Depends: apache2-bin (or apache2.2-bin in stable, which is a transitional package depending on apache2-bin in unstable). Also, just in general, popcon is not going to be particularly helpful in getting a count of servers, since they often come in large numbers in single locations, and there's often an institutional policy against running things like popcon that expose details of internal configurations to any outside party. Stanford wasn't even willing to run popcon on any institution server, let alone companies with more locked-down production environments. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/8738952q7a@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Noel Torres wrote: Exactly. Who they are? The people who chose Debian, are they laptop users? desktop users? sysadmins? The question is important. All of the people you mention choose Debian. It is impossible to know who they are though, except for people who ask us to add their organisation to the users section of the website and people claiming they use Debian in posts on various mailing lists and websites, we don't track the latter though. We can however compare various packages using the popcon graphs to get relative quantities of popcon submitters over time but we can't do that for all Debian users. It appears there are more web servers running Debian than people with Debian GNOME desktops but the ratio is changing over time. https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=apache2+gnomeshow_installed=onwant_percent=onwant_legend=onfrom_date=2013-01-01to_date=2015-01-01hlght_date=date_fmt=%25Y-%25mbeenhere=1 But we can have estimates. popcon gives us 98681 installations of libgnomevfs2-common (which may indicate desktop or laptop users) and 96647 installations of apache2.2-bin (which may indicate server users). Not a big difference. Please note that GNOME depends on apache2-bin by way of gnome-user-share so that isn't really a useful comparison. I'm sorry but you're wrong here. I actually want to know who uses Debian, not which groups are better suited to the desires of some contraposed groups of developers. ... I already know these. The question is not how many are there but who they are. It is great to know that we have millions of users, but who are they? I assume you aren't talking about the names of people who use Debian but about types of machines that run Debian and what those machines are used for. Some folks use laptops as servers for example. Specifically, are these machines servers or desktops/laptops? This information is not submitted to Debian so we can't know. We can guess based on the popcon graphs of installed packages but it doesn't cover all Debian users. It is a gut feeling, one that I share with systemd proponents, that Debian's desktop experience will be better for our users with systemd. Probably yes, since some of them depend on parts of it. It is a gut feeling also, and one that has been widely expresed by others, (with better and worse words) that Debian server admins will not be pleased with an init system which is bigger and does not use shell scripts to start system services. Inconveniences have been stated about binary logs (which has been expressed that it is not true), big binary, tightly related set of binaries, security relying in developers and packagers and not sysadmins, encompassing of not-init-related services, and more. I work as a sysadmin myself and I am very much looking forward to switching the systems I run to jessie with systemd. I believe that the Debian sysadmins (who run debian.org machines) are discussing trying systemd too. I believe the technical advantages of systemd outweigh the concerns and think that some of the concerns are actually advantages of systemd, not disadvantages. My opinions are based on the initial design for systemd and on the systemd for admins blog series as well as using systemd on my laptop. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/#thesystemdforadministratorsblogseries I acknowledge that some server admins may feel differently though and whether or not the claimed disadvantages are true, some server admins will be switching away from Debian entirely due to the systemd-by-default decision and some will continue to use Debian but choose to install sysvinit or stay with wheezy. So to know which of these two approachs is better for our users, which is what our Social Contract, 4, impose on us, we need to know who our users are. We can't know who they are but we can have guesses based on feedback and popcon. Without knowing that, we can not be true in deciding about switching or not on upgrades to best serve our users. Looking at jenkins, right now systemd-sysv is installed after upgrades: https://jenkins.debian.net/view/All/job/chroot-installation_wheezy_bootstrap_upgrade_to_jessie/523/console That said, I did an upgrade recently with an almost-Debian system and got sysvinit-core instead. -- bye, pabs https://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: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6gscy8z4ai++pskugvwujvcjmmzxwnkz0n5vk+vuxo...@mail.gmail.com
