Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>> For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
>> about all this on G+:
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
> And here is the reply from Gentoo de
On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
> about all this on G+:
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
And here is the reply from Gentoo developer Patrick Lauer:
http://gentooexperim
On 28/10/13 17:47, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Josselin Mouette writes:
While it is (and can remain) possible, just like in the
NM case, to install it without systemd and lose functionality, I think
it is unreasonable to ask for a default GNOME installation without it.
Thanks for making this clear.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [131029 03:15]:
> > Michael Stapelberg writes:
> > > my apologies for not replying to any messages within the thread, but I
> > > think my mail is orthogonal to the other messages.
> > > Lennart Poe
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Paul,
Good afternoon, Steve,
> Thanks for bringing this question to the Technical Committee. It's been on
> my todo list to raise this myself, with the intent of getting a TC decision
> before the end of this year. With only t
Hi guys, I'm just an user.
Well, can I make a suggestion?
We know systemd can't run on kFreeBSD and because of it Gnome can't run on
kFreeBSD too, but what about Cinnamon? Cinnamon is dependent on systemd?
1- If not, so Cinnamon + good apps can make kFreeBSD usable. So replacing
Gnome by Cinnamon o
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:43:44PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> And, since I've been informed that this was basically a contentless bug,
> I'd like to frame the technical half of the question better:
Thanks for bringing this question to the Technical Committee. It's been on
my todo
Hi Helmut,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:22:54AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Having read the parts of the ctte bug, it feels odd to preclude the
> option of supporting multiple init systems from discussion or
> consideration. If Debian is to support only one init system and that one
> init system i
* Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [131028 10:39]:
> As a side note, I think upstart’s CLA dismisses it as software
> of choice for our core system.
> I know it’s not the only important piece of software in Debian
> with a CLA. I still stand on this point. I have
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [131029 03:15]:
> Michael Stapelberg writes:
>
> > my apologies for not replying to any messages within the thread, but I
> > think my mail is orthogonal to the other messages.
>
> > Lennart Poettering wrote about the systemd upstream point of view on the
> > dis
TL;DR: Thoughts on using systemd .service files on non-Linux ports.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:20:10AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Note that there are two options that could be explored, to remove the
> need to maintain init scripts:
> - generating sysvinit scripts from systemd service files or
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:22:14PM +, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
> > drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
> While I'm not su
On 28/10/13 at 18:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do
> > support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we
> > (well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy shou
13 matches
Mail list logo
