]] Ian Jackson
(Sorry, 2nd copy here because I missed up the change of To field in
the previous one.)
cameron writes (Re: Bug#733452: init system daemon readiness protocol):
I was curious: why should SOCK_STREAM be used instead of SOCK_DGRAM in
your proposed protocol?
SOCK_DGRAM
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 07:08:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:15:33AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Similarly, I'm not sure why the focus on only adding necessary tools to
the initramfs image. Surely this doesn't matter much if the tools are
harmless when
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:18:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
For upstart readiness, obviously one needs some sort of explicit flag or
trigger to enable the raise(SIGSTOP) behavior, since that will otherwise
cause rather obvious problems in getting the daemon to work outside of
upstart. I
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:27:16AM -0008, cameron wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
inotify is used to notice changes to configuration files. This is
certainly helpful for users, but it isn't critical as initctl
reload-configuration works without it. We
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote (31 Dec 2013 16:58:17 GMT) :
I think you have misunderstood. Or perhaps I hae misunderstood you.
The work that I'm saying needs to be done anyway is the work to
disentange the parts of systemd which are required by (say) GNOME from
the parts which are only relevant for
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 18:47, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
However, I think it's the best available approach that balances our ideals
as a project against the opportunities offered by a new init system. This
approach does permit full use of new init system features for jessie
except for
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 05:52:03PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
Reservations with systemd
-
[...]
Basically, systemd would be more compelling to me if it tried to do
less. I don't expect to persuade systemd advocates of
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:27:16AM -0008, cameron wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
inotify is used to notice changes to configuration files. This is
certainly helpful for users,
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 17:17 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 05:52:03PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
Basically, systemd would be more compelling to me if it tried to do
less. I don't expect to persuade systemd advocates of
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 05:48 +0100, Mourad De Clerck wrote:
So last time I tried, this just worked - my rootfs got mounted using a
keyscript in the initramfs, and there were no problems, not a peep from
systemd when it took over, no re-setup or anything.
Sure... but that applies, AFAIU, only
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Wednesday, January 01, 2014 08:47:13 Josh Triplett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31,
Josh Triplett writes (Re: Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
In other words, what you're saying is that not only [something
about NetworkManager]
It's fairly clear that NetworkManager [something something]
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 09:37:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josh Triplett writes (Re: Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
In other words, what you're saying is that not only [something
about
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
I appreciate the explanation, and I'm familiar with the contents of the
decision. I simply see nothing there that should have motivated a
tech-ctte decision, rather than simply a couple of bug reports against
network-manager and an added
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
The criticisms of Upstart's event model in the systemd position
statement simply do not make sense to me. Events model how things
actually happen in reality; dependencies are artificial constructions on
top of them, and making them work requires the
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
The criticisms of Upstart's event model in the systemd position
statement simply do not make sense to me. Events model how things
actually happen in reality; dependencies are
On 01/01/2014 04:00 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
My second point is that by treating dependencies as events, upstart does
not seem to truly recognize dependencies as such and is then unable to
resolve them. For example, with the following two job files (created
according to the upstart cookbook,
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
The criticisms of Upstart's event model in the systemd position
statement simply do not make sense to me. Events model how things
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
The criticisms of Upstart's event model in the systemd
As I understand, a systemd unit with Requires=jobTwo will not start
without jobTwo running.
If you request the start of jobOne, without jobTwo running,
systemd will start jobTwo in addition to jobOne.
There's also a Requisite= dependency, where if jobTwo isn't runnning,
starting jobOne will
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
I think you raise a lot of good points in this email, but here you
are saying something which may demonstrate your (understandable)
confusion about the Upstart event model. Upstart does not treat
dependencies as events. Often times, Upstart
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl writes:
As I understand, a systemd unit with Requires=jobTwo will not start
without jobTwo running.
If you request the start of jobOne, without jobTwo running,
systemd will start jobTwo in addition to jobOne.
There's also a Requisite=
24 matches
Mail list logo
