Sorry to add more noise to #727708, but I feel the need to clarify some
accusations that have been made before.
First of all, there's been no malice from our side as you have accused us of in
this thread. As an example, if you look at the last gdm3 and gnome-shell 3.8.x
uploads and their bug
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Colin Watson
The de facto interface for making an init system the default is to
install it as /sbin/init. While I'm coming at this from a starting
point different from Cameron's above - I haven't yet decided whether I
]] Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Colin Watson
The de facto interface for making an init system the default is to
install it as /sbin/init. While I'm coming at this from a starting
point different from Cameron's above - I haven't
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:53 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
You mean, like installing the systemd-sysv package?
Indeed; but people earlier in this thread have said that this isn't the
preferred approach, so I was arguing that this
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 06:21:13PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
I think there is a huge problem with recommending that systemd be installed
by the user changing the init line in grub: a package can not depend on an
init system being PID 1. Can a package be made that changes the init line
to
]] Colin Watson
The de facto interface for making an init system the default is to
install it as /sbin/init. While I'm coming at this from a starting
point different from Cameron's above - I haven't yet decided whether I
think it would be good for packages to be able to depend on specific
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 15:24 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I think the Depends: systemd should be dropped (via a split of the
systemd package), that's not required for fixing the present problem. That
can be addressed by having gnome-settings-daemon Depends: systemd,
systemd-shim |
[I'm going to avoid responding to the points of this mail that Russ
already did in his response, in favor of just agreeing entirely with
that mail.]
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:34:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the proper
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 15:24 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I think the Depends: systemd should be dropped (via a split of the
systemd package), that's not required for fixing the present problem.
That
can be
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
I think there is a huge problem with recommending that systemd be
installed by the user changing the init line in grub: a package can not
depend on an init system being PID 1. Can a package be made that changes
the init line to systemd? I think
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
currently running sysvinit suddenly resulted in running systemd without
some sort of critical debconf question or the like.
Indeed.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
currently running sysvinit suddenly resulted in running systemd without
some sort of critical debconf
On Saturday, February 01, 2014 19:14:21 Cameron Norman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
currently running sysvinit suddenly
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.uswrote:
On Saturday, February 01, 2014 19:14:21 Cameron Norman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade
14 matches
Mail list logo
