Ah, you're a systemd acolyte. You smugly proclaim that it is USELESS to resist!
::
Forking every package that depends on systemd is pointless.
If you read what I wrote you would see that I said fork everything below/or
above
(whatever software stack direction you believe in) the linux kernel,
This bug discussion is already quite long and protracted, and it would be
easier for those following it if strategic discussions of how to drive the
future of Linux could be moved to other, more appropriate forums where
they have a better chance of finding their audience.
It's either Lennarts way
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:59:10PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Jan 30 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
#debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
FYI, I'm travelling this week and don't believe I'll make it to this
meeting.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
Not wanting to have to learn the flavor of the month, then relearn the new
flavor of the month after that, and relearn the next flavor of the month is
nonsense, gotcha.
And anyone who disagrees strongly with being forced to use systemd is a troll.
Yep.
Wanting some stability in things, and
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:39, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
I don't want to pass a resolution specifying the default without also
answering the other two, related, contentious questions:
Q1: Do we intend to
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:11AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/lvm2-activation-early.service
Wrong name.
Renaming them to lvm2{,-early}.service as you suggested is fine
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:05:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:24:12PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:05:01PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
For anyone intending to make Debian the laughingstock of the open source
world, here is a good opportunity:
Debian decides that Upstart is the default init system for
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:50:00PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
...
Further, in my
experience it was *way* more stable to either go for full systemd or
always rely on the reduced functionality. The runtime detection of is
systemd running as PID 1 was IMO not very stable (and that wasn't just
Below is the current draft of a resolution to resolve 728486. I have one
current comment in the draft which I would like clarified. [CTTE
members: please comment/suggest change.] I also expect to change the
reference to the patch to a newly updated patch with the changes
suggested in
On 19:01, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:05:01PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
What makes you think gnome is going to be the default?
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tasksel/tasksel.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfca406eb694e0ac00ea04b12fc912237e01c9b5
Read the text in
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 19:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
No, you are not. There are several features in systemd that GNOME uses.
One of them is user sessions, for which there will indeed be a fallback
in place. But it is not the only one.
Can you provide a list of features
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 06:41:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 19:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
...
Assuming jessie will support multiple init systems, why would GNOME need
a dependency on systemd?
Because it needs logind.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:59:10PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Jan 30 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
#debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
FYI, I'm travelling this week and don't believe I'll make it to this
meeting.
I don't
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:00 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
What *basic functionality* exactly is missing in GNOME 3.10 without logind?
Note that I am not referring to bugs that are not yet sorted out like
* Switch from consolekit to systemd-logind sessions. For some reason
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:00 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
What *basic functionality* exactly is missing in GNOME 3.10 without logind?
Note that I am not referring to bugs that are not yet sorted out like
* Switch
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:43 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You have the answer to your own question above. Unlocking the screen
sounds like pretty basic functionality.
Your statement was
I also have to insist that GNOME 3.10+ *needs* a working logind even for
basic functionality
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:00 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
What *basic functionality* exactly is missing in GNOME 3.10 without
logind?
Note that I am not referring to bugs that are
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:27:53AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:00 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
What *basic functionality* exactly is missing in GNOME 3.10
2014-01-29 Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de:
[...]
I do fully acknowledge that there are issues with ConsoleKit being
unmaintained and many non-systemd codepath in GNOME being unmaintained
and with GNOME missing some non-basic functionality without systemd.
But claims that even basic functionality
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
No, Josselin is right: GNOME *does not* work without services provided
by systemd. He never said that - given some amount of work - it can't
Hum, we can always add “remove GNOME (3) from Debian” to the
list of GR or TC points to consider (this *has* been suggested
earlier,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2014-01-29 Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de:
[...]
I do fully acknowledge that there are issues with ConsoleKit being
unmaintained and many non-systemd codepath in GNOME being unmaintained
and with GNOME missing some non-basic
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:27:53AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm still wondering if maybe there's just a communication failure here, so
let me try one more round.
My understanding of what Josselin is saying is that GNOME's ConsoleKit
support is
Don Armstrong wrote:
Below is the current draft of a resolution to resolve 728486. I have one
current comment in the draft which I would like clarified. [CTTE
members: please comment/suggest change.] I also expect to change the
reference to the patch to a newly updated patch with the changes
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:45:32PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
No, Josselin is right: GNOME *does not* work without services provided
by systemd. He never said that - given some amount of work - it can't
Hum, we can always add “remove GNOME (3) from Debian” to the
Hello,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:17:29 +0100
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Gnome-shell uses GDM for screen locking, and GDM heavily relies on
logind nowadays. There is fallback code that uses ConsoleKit, but it
has been untested for several major releases, and now fails even for
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:54:11PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:17:29 +0100
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Gnome-shell uses GDM for screen locking, and GDM heavily relies on
logind nowadays. There is fallback code that uses ConsoleKit, but it
has been
On 30 January 2014 09:54, Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:17:29 +0100
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Gnome-shell uses GDM for screen locking, and GDM heavily relies on
logind nowadays. There is fallback code that uses ConsoleKit, but it
Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me writes:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Gnome-shell uses GDM for screen locking, and GDM heavily relies on
logind nowadays. There is fallback code that uses ConsoleKit, but it
has been untested for several major releases, and now fails even for
This sounds like a good solution, since MATE is the gnome we all knew, and the
Gnome of today is a different beast entirely (though it gets to keep the name).
::
Hum, we can always add “remove GNOME (3) from Debian” to the
list of GR or TC points to consider (this *has* been suggested
earlier,
If you don't like the software, don't use it.
Absolutely. But that is not really an option that is to be afforded to all of
us if
the systemd guys successfully have their way with linux.
It would be nice if they afforded us such a freedom, but their statements
and their actions suggest that
31 matches
Mail list logo
