Russ Allbery writes:
> I assumed that if option B won, some
> maintainers would drop init scripts, and therefore if folks wanted to
> maintain a set of working init scripts, they'd need to look at different
> options than ensuring they were incorporated into each package.
I agree, this was my se
gregor herrmann writes:
> What surprises me in this discussion: My very broad summary of the GR
> result was "systemd is the top priority, other init systems are
> supported on a best-effort basis", and now I'm reading statements which
> sound to me like "looking into new/future/niche init system
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 15:39:47 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 27 Dec 2020 at 07:26PM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > My reasoning is that init scripts are the end goal, and that elogind is
> > just a symptom of that end goal, and that therefore talking about
> > elogind in isolation serves no p
Hello Wouter,
On Sun 27 Dec 2020 at 07:26PM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> My reasoning is that init scripts are the end goal, and that elogind is
> just a symptom of that end goal, and that therefore talking about
> elogind in isolation serves no purpose.
The GR specifically mentions elogind and
Hi Sam,
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:05:37AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Wouter> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:28:55AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> I think that we should either decide that
> >>
> >> 1) NetworkManager should support elogind
> >>
> >> or
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:28:55AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I think that we should either decide that
>>
>> 1) NetworkManager should support elogind
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) That we haven't seen enough development o
6 matches
Mail list logo
