Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:48:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I have never seen a gratuitous incompatibility caused by this. Do you
have any examples?
I would argue that every single result returned by 'ls -l /usr/sbin/
/usr/bin|grep /bin',
]] Ian Jackson
It's not clear to me from the discussion there exactly what systemd
upstream's position on this kind of thing is.
Can someone point us, for example, to a statement by the systemd
upstreams about their support for separate /usr (or their non-support
for it) ?
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:28:23AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Ian Jackson
It's not clear to me from the discussion there exactly what systemd
upstream's position on this kind of thing is.
Can someone point us, for example, to a statement by the systemd
upstreams about their
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:24:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Note that the original complaint in the samba upstream discussion was
about hard-coding of paths to system utilities, which a) is not portable
between distributions and b) contradicts
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:24:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
They're fairly trivial ones, though, no? Maintaining a local patch to
change the paths in a systemd unit is certainly way less effort than
maintaining the whole unit. It's akin to changing
In the systemd statement we see:
Systemd's upstream is very accommodating to distributors. They are
taking a lot of Debian's needs into account, even though it has not
yet been decided to make it the default.
The upstart statement says:
systemd upstream paints a utopian vision where
6 matches
Mail list logo
