]] 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) ?
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Bug#727708: systemd (security) bugs):
Another point here is that it's sounding like we'll be using a lot of
those services regardless, at least on systems that need them, which means
that their security track record and bug rate is somewhat irrelevant for
this
Le lundi 02 décembre 2013 à 11:22 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I don't think that's entirely true. I think it is fair to look at the
security history of other parts of the same project as indicative
regarding code quality.
There are two implied assumptions here:
* that the same people
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
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:11:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
For the TC decision, what kind of information are you looking for about
the plans, beyond the Ubuntu developers expect to need to address this
before upgrading from systemd
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
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
Thanks for your mail.
From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
lvm2_activation_generator_systemd_red_hat.c will allow for the
activation of lvm2 after the addition of an
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
After systemd was fixed, yes.
Bastian
--
Conquest is easy. Control is not.
-- Kirk, Mirror, Mirror, stardate unknown
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:11:43PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Sunday 01 December 2013 21:50:49 Ian Jackson wrote:
This leads me to a question which I find myself asking, after reading
the systemd debate page:
If we were to adopt systemd as pid 1, which sections of the systemd
source
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:48:54PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
Thanks for your mail.
From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
Le lundi 02 décembre 2013 à 13:41 -0700, Bdale Garbee a écrit :
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
There are two implied assumptions here:
* that the same people are developing all components;
* that develolpers have the same attention to code quality and
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
After systemd was fixed, yes.
Can you let me know which part of systemd needed to be fixed? [What bug#
is this?]
Can you also
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 02 décembre 2013 à 13:41 -0700, Bdale Garbee a écrit :
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
There are two implied assumptions here:
* that the same people are developing all components;
* that develolpers have
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 15:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 02 décembre 2013 à 13:41 -0700, Bdale Garbee a écrit :
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
There are two implied assumptions here:
* that the same people are
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Projects which have multiple components, each of which has different
security/interface surfaces without stable defined interfaces, can lead
to problems when one set of developers doesn't understand the security
implications of the parts that they do not
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
While it's fair to note that Canonical is a smaller company with fewer
resources than Red Hat, Canonical is certainly not the only company
working on technologies that don't fit into systemd upstream's model.
On the question of cgroup management for
I should say up-front that I don't consider this to be a decisive issue,
but since it was raised and I did a bit of investigation, I wanted to
report my initial conclusions and see if I missed anything or got anything
wrong.
I did a quick code inspection of the code base for both upstart and
18 matches
Mail list logo
