Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit : Did I miss something? Yes. Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot, that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO. Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that Option 1 (…) won by default is factually wrong. It's summary was not init policy stands either. This is only my interpretation as an armchair observer, also in the US called Monday morning quarterback. It was a policy vote. No; absolutely not; it was a General Resolution. Debian doesn't have policy votes (the Debian Policy updating process is based on consensus evaluation through Policy amendments seconding, see the debian-policy list). The only results that matter are their effect on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic. That's IMHO a completely biased way to look at this GR and its results: especially when one message carried by the winning option is we should not use GRs to set technical policy. I invite you to go read Russ Allbery's interpretation for a good reading of the results. https://lists.debian.org/871toyj2bh@hope.eyrie.org The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the winning option didn't, for example. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at the time, nothing more. Putting some was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. (…) so Option 1 was a non-controversial interpretation of Debian Policy (as I read the -vote discussion). I don't _at_all_ read the -vote discussion that way. Option 1 was considered highly problematic because (amongst other problems) it was creating a _new_ technical requirement through GR. Option 1 therefore wins by default, especially if the (apparent) consensus about init coupling being a bug is affirmed in practice. I don't understand how you can reach this conclusion. Option 1 was the least preferred amongst non-FD options. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/7095856.6iTIQ5buoO@gyllingar
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le mercredi, 26 novembre 2014, 09.21:00 The Wanderer a écrit : On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the winning option didn't, for example. But without the options which did, would there have been any point in the vote's taking place at all? That's kind of what the winning option said: no, there was no point in having the vote in the first place, our existing procedures are working just fine. (+ we don't want to be setting Technical Policy through GR). Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at the time, nothing more. While this may be true... Putting some was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. ...this is, itself, misleading. Indeed, sorry for the copy-paste typo. I'm saying that §9.11 was not designed for anything else than ensuring that the Debian archive would keep working with the default init system of the time, nothing more. Reading between its lines to try convincing readers that it was designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd is dishonest, IMHO. Feel free to go ask the policy editors if you disagree. Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit : Did I miss something? Yes. Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot, that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO. Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that Option 1 (…) won by default is factually wrong. It's summary was not init policy stands either. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/12232320.aQDQiIBOmO@gyllingar
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 21.20:52 Jerry Stuckle a écrit : On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have yet to have a single problem with it. What about all of those people with custom software running which relies on sysv init for starting? systemd supports sysvinit init scripts (that have the LSB headers which are already mandatory in wheezy) just fine. Not doing so would be a bug, of course. Please avoid spreading false rumours, that doesn't help. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2048231.4DZMdN81Fu@gyllingar
Re: the developers have spoken
Le mercredi, 19 novembre 2014, 15.47:43 Raffaele Morelli a écrit : https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00014.html The winners are: Option 4 General Resolution is not required For which the complete text [0] is: The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Cheers, OdyX [0] https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003#amendmenttextc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4363228.IQnfC0gPhV@gyllingar
Re: init scripts [was: If Not Systemd, then What?]
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 11.50:25 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service scripts. Let's take the inverse view: which of these use the upstream sysvinit scripts directly ? The answer, as demonstrated below, is: none. bind9 http://sources.debian.net/src/bind9/1:9.9.5.dfsg-5/debian/bind9.init/ apache http://sources.debian.net/src/apache2/2.4.10-7/debian/apache2.init/ sympa http://sources.debian.net/src/sympa/6.1.23~dfsg-1/debian/sympa.init/ mailman http://sources.debian.net/src/mailman/1:2.1.18-1/debian/mailman.init/ mysql http://sources.debian.net/src/mysql-5.5/5.5.39-1/debian/mysql-server-5.5.mysql.init/ mariadb http://sources.debian.net/src/mariadb-10.0/10.0.14-3/debian/mariadb-server-10.0.mysql.init/ postgres http://sources.debian.net/src/postgresql-common/163/debian/postgresql-common.postgresql.init/ postfix http://sources.debian.net/src/postfix/2.11.3-1/debian/init.d/ spamassassin http://sources.debian.net/src/spamassassin/3.4.0-3/debian/spamassassin.init/ amavisd http://sources.debian.net/src/amavisd-new/1:2.10.1-1/debian/amavisd-new.amavis.init/ clamav http://sources.debian.net/src/clamav/0.98.5~rc1%2Bdfsg-4/debian/clamav-daemon.init.in/ (I've only looked at current sid versions and checked in the debian/ directory. Feel free to run your own investigations using the fantastic sources.debian.net.) Most come with sysvinit scripts, several come with their own startup scripts (e.g., apachectl) that get dropped into rc.local. Not a one comes with a native systemd service file The above IMHO demonstrates quite clearly one of the advantages of systemd over sysvinit: for all of the examples you took, Debian is currently using a Debian-specific sysvinit script (I haven't investigated the reasons though), all of which are quite redundant. They are not shared across distributions at all. So, the upstream examples you chose actually demonstrate that these were not targeting Debian enough for the Debian maintainers to use the provided init scripts (if these were even provided). (Note, I'm not claiming Debian will not need to modify the eventual systemd configuration files either, even if I think it's less probable.) Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2240015.XzS36MAbdC@gyllingar
Re: init scripts [was: If Not Systemd, then What?]
Le mardi, 18 novembre 2014, 22.10:22 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Let's take the inverse view: which of these use the upstream sysvinit scripts directly ? The answer, as demonstrated below, is: none. Out of curiosity, how are you comparing these to the init scripts that are generated by making the upstream source? I was not comparing, I was checking which debian/ folders (aka Debian packaging) would contain init scripts, which are then installed in the binary packages as /etc/init.d/package (see dh_installinit). At the very least, would not the appropriate references be (changelogs) (…) or a diff between the upstream source and the script in the Debian package The content of the debian/ directory in an unpacked Debian source package is exactly that (which is what sources.debian.net shows), hence my references. the in depth analysis would be how many additional changes had to be added to accommodate any incompatibilities between sysvinit scripts and systemd's handling of said scripts I'm ready to place a bet that more changes were made in these scripts by the introduction of insserv and mandatory LSB headers than by making sure they work fine when run by systemd. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1904407.p3R537Cgjt@gyllingar
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 16.36:42 Peter Nieman a écrit : Preventing the systemd takeover is certainly important, but it won't be enough to reverse the trend, I fear. None of the talking on debian-user about meta, conceptual or generic systemd issues will allow a systemd takeover in Debian; none. NONE. The Debian Technical Committee was asked to resolve a dispute of overlapping jurisdictions by deciding (in agreement with the Debian Constitution) which init system would be default for the Jessie release. It decided to put 'systemd' on the ballot and the outcome of the vote was 'systemd'. The TC included a possibility to override this decision with an exceptional '1:1' majority requirement. The Developers' body which could have overriden this decision, hasn't done so, at all (a GR to do so was not even proposed). That decision of the Debian TC is therefore 'in force' for the whole Debian project. You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. In fact, I'm quite sure that the 'meta' discussions about systemd on debian-user are seriously annoying to a lot of subscribers and to a lot of developers too. This, because what should be done now is not arguying endlessly, but making Jessie the best Debian release ever (given the TC decision) through making Jessie work as best as possible with systemd as init, through making Jessie work as best as possible with sysvinit as init and doing _actual testing_ of Debian Jessie, in real use-cases. Screaming and whining about supposed issues with Jessie without testing it is unproductive, noisy and unfair to the developers. You might not have noticed, but making points on debian-user against systemd-in-general or systemd-as-adopted-by-Debian is not making a case for a systemd-less Debian (much the contrary), it is not either making a case for a revert of the TC decision (much the contrary). The only way to make a case for a systemd-less Debian is to _do_it_ ! In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3750416.2yWWoOgTss@gyllingar
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le jeudi, 13 novembre 2014, 09.04:50 Tanstaafl a écrit : It should have been made mandatory that the systemd folks get this bug fully resolved and functional *on wheezy* This is simply not how Debian works; stable is meant to stay stable. *and* commit to maintaining this ability in jessie, as a pre-condition to even getting the question of a change of the default init system for jessie on the ballot. In your opinion. But the TC _has_ decided to have the 'systemd' option their decision ballot, despite the conditions of the time. Anything else, as I said, makes no sense. In your opinion. But the TC _has_ decided otherwise and that decision was not challenged by any GR. It is *the systemd proponents* that wanted this change, so it should be *on them* to do the work. Period. In your opinion. But the TC _has_ decided otherwise and that decision was not challenged by any GR. You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. Can we move on now? OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4765160.2y5WnQX4DO@gyllingar
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit : Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix that bug (…) This is simply not how Debian works. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/35408764.NdDqWYIsj0@gyllingar
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 10.17:54 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit : Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix that bug (…) This is simply not how Debian works. You mean a bug can't be marked as release critical? I mean that people cannot be required to fix bugs. Furthermore, the people in the Release Team have the final word (modulo GR override) on what they consider release critical. This definition happens to currently match the policy severity definition, but isn't necessarily so; in particular, they've used their 'wheezy-ignore' tags during the last freeze for bugs that had a particular severity but that they didn't consider release-critical. I can't insist enough on this: the Debian procedures have been correctly followed; the TC took a decision which could be challenged by a simple majority GR [0]. This GR has never been called by anyone with voting rights, or hasn't gathered enough seconds to get to a vote. The TC decision stays in force as a decision to have systemd as default init system for jessie. You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. OdyX [0] 20140211193904.gx24...@rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1516614.Jy0ni6deh4@gyllingar
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 10.33:20 Tanstaafl a écrit : On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit : Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix that bug (…) This is simply not how Debian works. If Debian works in such a way that the Tech Committee can *dictate* a major change to what is agreed upon by most as a critical piece of the operating system (in this case the init system) - especially one that has gone unchanged for as long as anyone can remember - then I submit to you that indeed they *can* require that as a part of such a change, certain minimal requirements be met. The Tech Committee has exercised its power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction, because it was asked to do so by a fellow Developer; they were asked to break a tie, which is vastly different from 'dictating' a major change. Them requiring certain minimal requirements would have been quite unusual in Debian procedures, but would certainly have been possible. The Tech Committee simply didn't decide to do so. As I wrote already, you might disagree with their decision or the way it was taken. So far, the decision hasn't been challenged by a GR; none has been proposed or gathered enough seconds. Can we move on to solving practical problems rather than exploring theories? Thanks in advance, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1974586.MQei8ILaJe@gyllingar
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 20.10:42 Brian a écrit : Sounds like, doesn't it? Let's be practical and see how how a screen in d-i could present an init system choice to a user, particularly having a new user in mind. For what is worth, the layout of the menu is not the problem here. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5058930.seW6LS61qO@gyllingar
Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 20.08:08 st a écrit : Hans wrote: I just wanted to show ways, where EVERYONE might be happy Sure. Sure. Everybody who has invested years into learning Debian is just jumping of joy now that it is suddenly turned into a completely different OS _and_ they have to find another Unix _and_ learn it almost from scratch _and_ figure out a way to seamlessly migrate their servers and desktops and stuff. Debian was always and will always stay both free of charge and provided without warranty of any sort (besides the Social Contract). Your servers and desktops and stuff were running a full operating system stack absolutely for free, and the Debian project is both happy and proud of that fact. Debian also was always and will always stay technically defined by those volunteering to make it what it is. By extension, it is explicitly not defined by those not putting work (but only words) into it; unmaintained software and code paths are routinely removed when not enough volunteers keep the things working, and that's a good thing. Blaming the Debian project for letting the Debian distribution evolve in ways defined by its volunteers is unfair. Furthermore, Debian has always let people wanting to improve things do their work within the project (wherever possible in terms of collaboration with others, of course), aka scratching their itch. It's been repeated many times already, but I'll try again: people expecting Jessie to work as best as they hoped wit sysvinit should have tested Jessie as early as possible (they should still do it now!) and reported useful bugs wherever they were encountering them. Debian maintainers put effort where they see fit (according to the Constitution's §2.1.1) and there's nothing in the project's structures imposing work on anyone, that's absolutely central to a project where people are not bound to work through a paycheck but by motivation. Claiming I will take Jessie when released and complain that it doesn't do what I expect it to do if need be is totally missing the point of a volunteer-run distribution such as Debian. That some people have built expectations of eternal immobilism on future Debian releases cannot be Debian's responsibility; Debian must be (and will be) able to continue drawing its own path as defined by those putting work in it. If you don't like that path, roll your sleeves up, and make the changes you wish to see in Debian! If it's not possible in Debian, by all means, please fork or derive from Debian to create your own flavour of the Debian distribution, taking what you find best in it and leaving aside what you don't want! Debian is an extraordinary coordinated collection of Free Software, that is available for you to take and modify as you see fit; please make the best use of that freedom! Thanks for reading so far, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 12.34:10 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Laurent Bigonville wrote: There are no functional differences between an installation with sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is installed later, this is a fact. No, that's NOT a fact. At least it's not a tested and demonstrated fact for complex configurations such as virtualized environments with complicated file system wiring. Laurent has put up a claim with which you disagree out of guessing, without putting up any demonstrable or testable counter-proof yourself. (…) I'm not particularly interested in testing how well install/replace systemd and its dependencies works in our environment (both hypervisor level or guest debootstrapped guest domain). If I rephrase what you're saying, you're basically expecting others to make sure your environment still works as you see fit across the wheezy- to-jessie upgrade, right? That's really too bad, because you're exactly the one best person to detect problems, write constructive bug reports or provide patches (or wording suggestions) for the upgrade notes to make sure your environment will work as you see fit after the upgrade to Jessie (be it for dist- upgrades or new installations, by the way). If you are not doing the work needed, why would others? You seem to be projecting very high expectations onto the Debian project and its volunteers, without acknowledging the fact that you're getting this work exactly for free, which I think is unfair (but that's probably just me). OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5180530.PJB8ggEslL@gyllingar
Re: Debian-Live 7.6.0 usb username password?
Le vendredi, 7 novembre 2014, 09.06:04 Lisi Reisz a écrit : Quite. And it may have been an x/y question. But the question was how to get in from the log-in screen. I must download and burn a live Debian CD in order to find out!! Given a working virtualization setup (KVM, Qemu, Virtualbox), you don't need to actually burn the live CD to test it out. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20514895.LATjxO7hzv@gyllingar
Re: forks, derivatives, other distros - what are you thinking/doing
Le mercredi, 5 novembre 2014, 11.45:55 Haines Brown a écrit : This seems to me an entirely legitimate issue for the debian-user group, for it concerns whether Debian will continue to be useful in relation to the needs and values of its average user. debian-user is not a group of subscribers where the people constituting said group can bring _any_ subject on the table; debian- user is a forum with a specific focus, as outlined by the subscription page. A subject that is of interest to the subscribers of debian-user isn't necessarily on-topic. Let's attempt an analogy: if several members of a literature club started to use the literature club room to (lively) discuss their common interests in motorbikes, ice creams or ponytails, I'd hope someone from the club would ask them to have these discussions outside of the room. That wouldn't mean censoring them or hindering their right to free speech; that would be ensuring that the (few remaining) members of the literature club can continue using the club room for its purpose. I'm not saying these discussions should not happen (much to the contrary, even!); I'm saying they should not happen on debian-user, where, although certainly interesting for debian-user subscribers, they are not on-topic. Note that I would be happy with mails starting a new off-topic discussion, but cross-posted with another mailing list, with a Reply-To to that other list and an explicit request to host the discussion there. (That would be the motorbikes member of the literature club chiming in the room to say hey, we're starting a discussion about the latest 4- cylinder motorbike in that bar there, you're invited to join.) Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Le mercredi, 5 novembre 2014, 09.21:26 Jerry Stuckle a écrit : On 11/5/2014 2:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please re-read the list topic: From https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ : Community assistance and support for Debian users. Support for Debian users who speak English Thanks in advance for moving this discussion about possible forks elsewhere; there's d-community-offtopic[0] if you need a Debian-hosted forum. I disagree. This is ALL about Debian and Debian users. Please re-read what I wrote, I'm not claiming it's not related to Debian, at all; I'm claiming that the discussion is not on-topic for debian-user, which is not a generic discussion forum, but a list specifically focused on community assistance and support for Debian users. Just because YOU don't like the idea of a fork does not mean other Debian users aren't interested. I'm entirely neutral to the idea of a Debian fork; I am just pointing out that this off-topic discussion is hijacking debian-user and that it's not Debian's responsibility to host discussion about possible forks. I'll go as far as saying that it _is_ Debian's responsibility to make sure its resources are properly used for the actual _assistance_ of its users. Keeping list discussions on-topic is one way of ensuring this. And the advantages and disadvantages of a fork should be of interest to all Debian users. Discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of Ubuntu or Mint are not on-topic for debian-user either. At least these forks/derivatives _exist_. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3628845.Hoe2mZ84da@gyllingar
Re: forks, derivatives, other distros - what are you thinking/doing
Miles, Le mercredi, 5 novembre 2014, 09.32:57 Miles Fidelman a écrit : [If you're happy with systemd, and not considering a change - please stay out of this discussion. If you object to the very nature of the discussion, hit your delete key and kill file this thread now.] I object to the very nature of this discussion on debian-user: it's not _at_all_ on-topic for this list. I'm not happy either with you suggesting that people finding this thread off-topic should kill file this thread. This list will only stay useful for Debian users seeking community assistance and support iff the discussions stay focused on providing this community assistance and support. Please stop this constant hijack of debian-user with these meta discussions (that these are about systemd is not relevant). These discussions are roughly on-topic on d-community-offtopic [0] if you absolutely need to use a Debian-provided list. Thanks in advance for the sanity of the other readers of debian-user. OdyX [0] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1953267.xbI6c68Us2@gyllingar
Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork that retains the flavor and philosophy of pre-systemd (and maybe pre-udev) Debian. Just. Do. It. It might even be successful! We'll be in a better world with a new distro out there satisfying needs not satisfied anymore by Debian! By all means, transform this energy into action and create the free software environment that you need. It will be more work than whining on lists, sure, but that's the only way to make the change fitting your hopes eventually happen. Just. Do. It. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1967489.3JmRjoCPO3@gyllingar
Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 21.13:36 Jerry Stuckle a écrit : Yes, but you seem to want to stifle any discussion of a possible fork. Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please re-read the list topic: From https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ : Community assistance and support for Debian users. Support for Debian users who speak English Thanks in advance for moving this discussion about possible forks elsewhere; there's d-community-offtopic[0] if you need a Debian-hosted forum. Cheers, OdyX [0] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2046839.ETviGpN5Sb@gyllingar
Re: LZ4 decompression on Boot
Hi Andre, Le mercredi, 29 octobre 2014, 11.43:18 Andre Massena a écrit : I was not aware that Grub played a role in decompressing a kernal at boot as that is a kernel function. (…) Le mercredi, 29 octobre 2014, 13.21:37 Andre Massena a écrit : No takers here? (…) Le mercredi, 29 octobre 2014, 18.21:40 Andre Massena a écrit : I cannot believe that nobody has tried to boot using LZ4 kernel compression/decompression. I would suggest that you wait slightly more than 5 hours before re- pinging the list… Please be patient. Now, for the subject at hand, I suspect most users don't care switching away from the default kernel compression scheme, which happens to just work. It also has a minor impact on disk-space and an even smaller impact on boot time. I'm not really surprised you aren't getting many answers. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/9575760.FJjgp76Vrn@gyllingar
Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
I really don't buy the argument that the GR proposal was too quiet to be noticed by 6+ people. I mean: the proposition happened to be in the middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it belonged. The people who cared about the whole default init for Debian question _were_ following and contributing to these various lists. I'm therefore claiming that the people who missed the GR proposal were not sufficiently interested (otherwise they would've been subscribed to either -vote or -project, where these proposals belong). I'm also thankful that the proposer limited his proposal to these lists (I'd have considered a spread of the call over -devel, -user or other lists an abuse). Le lundi, 13 octobre 2014, 16.15:02 Ian Jackson a écrit : If four other DDs send me and Matthew Vernon private email to say that they would support a GR on this subject, I will restart this conversation on -project. Doing this now despite the fact that the GR didn't reach its 6 seconds, 7 months ago, will lead to an incredibly bigger waste of time, just when we're about to freeze testing. The GR train passed… Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/17667995.ybzVghadep@gyllingar
Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
Le lundi, 13 octobre 2014, 12.23:00 Miles Fidelman a écrit : Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: I really don't buy the argument that the GR proposal was too quiet to be noticed by 6+ people. Actually - I'd contest that, for four reasons: - as I've previously noted - the major impacts of systemd are being (going to be) felt by sysadmins and upstream developers - who don't necessarily follow debian-devel all that closely -- or have input Mind you, most if not all of the CTTE are both sysadmins and upstream developers, and I'd go as far as saying that most of DDs are either too. - the actual GR call for vote was buried on debian-vote - immediately jumped on regarding wording and procedural discussions Yes, and? There was a proposal on -vote, which could have been followed by seconds, totally ignoring the side-discussions. Don't expect launching a GR about a) overriding a Debian body; b) the default init system to be a quiet ride. - actual discussion of the GR on -devel was completely swamped by all the other discussion of systemd My feeling is that the swamping happened because some people disagreeing with the CTTE vote vented a lot of frustration through whining and complaining instead of focusing their energy to formulate a concrete proposal for a GR. We're talking about finding _6_ seconds, so I'd only buy this argument if the threshold was 50 (or so) and we'd have only found a dozen seconds. OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2605439.lZGhNDzrLW@gyllingar
