On 01/19/2014 08:15 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
How mature a system is and how well-developed in Debian are relevant
factors
If we're making a competition of how long has an given init system been
in Debian, then for sure, OpenRC looses. However, on all the tests I
did, I see no major issue with
Nikolaus Rath writes (Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Thomas, does OpenRC provide a means for do non-forking daemon
startup ?
[...]
Ian, quoting from your previous evaluation of upstart
(http
Thomas Goirand writes (Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all):
On 01/19/2014 08:15 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
* The daemon does not double-fork; it runs in the foreground of
of its initial process.
Something like start-stop-daemon then? :)
Err, no, becase...
See
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Nikolaus Rath writes (Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Thomas, does OpenRC provide a means for do non-forking daemon
startup ?
[...]
Ian, quoting from your
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:41:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc
I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude
toward OpenRC in general.
I pointed out to bdale (privately) as well that this was unacceptable.
I've seen
El dom, 19-01-2014 a las 17:11 +0800, Thomas Goirand escribió:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:41:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc
I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude
toward OpenRC in general.
I pointed
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:41:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc
I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude
toward OpenRC in general.
The reason why I'm not investing the
Thomas Goirand writes (Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all):
I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude
toward OpenRC in general.
I'm sorry about that, but:
The way I investigated both systems was by reading their documentation
and playing about
Hello.
On 01/19/2014 01:11 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
Oh, really?
Then can you explain why
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945
has not been marked as fixed?
It is the view of the upstream maintainers that the
* Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org) [140119 10:15]:
Unfortunately, it seems it's going to be the way OpenRC will be
evaluated: because some people *pretended* that OpenRC wouldn't fit the
bill, it's just discarded without even having a look at how it works,
its features, and its implementation.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
But
it was way behind both systemd and upstart in terms of readiness in Debian
going into this discussion, and the amount of catching up that's required
here for it to displace upstart as my second choice just doesn't seem
feasible for me.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:14:04PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Anyway, why is there so much rush? jessie is going to default to
sysvinit no matter what.
I don't know why you have that impression. The default for jessie is
exactly one of the things we're deciding here, and I'm rather certain
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
But it was way behind both systemd and upstart in terms of readiness in
Debian going into this discussion, and the amount of catching up that's
required here for it to displace upstart as my
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Thomas Goirand writes (Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all):
But that OpenRC just hasn't been considered just because of rumors is
really unacceptable.
The reason I haven't seriously considered OpenRC for the default
14 matches
Mail list logo
