Josselin Mouette writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing
logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of packages that just need
the logind interfaces. If it is not available, software such as gdm3
will depend, directly
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Firstly, I think the scenario where the required integration work is
not done is unlikely. But in that scenario, we have two choices:
(a) Effectively, drop all init systems other than systemd
(b) Effectively, drop GNOME
Of these, (b) is
Ian Jackson wrote:
Josselin Mouette writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing
logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of packages that just need
the logind interfaces. If it is not available, software such as gdm3
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
In the spirit of my response to Noah Meyerhans:
In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
* alternative init system implementations
*
Josselin Mouette writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Le jeudi 13 février 2014 à 23:47 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Depending on how this is written, it may depend on the package providing
journalctl or it may depend on some shared library that implements the
journal reading
Ian Jackson wrote:
I suppose what I mean is that a problem which occurs due to wrong
init system is a real problem and should not be reduced in severity or
excused on the grounds that the particular init system is defined as
required (whether via a dependency or otherwise).
So if the
Hi guys,
So in light of the new announcement[1] how much of L vs T is still
relevant?
Upstart is obviously going to be pretty much dead in the water now given
this - after who is going to seriously contribute to a deprecated
project CLA or no?
It would seem to this outside observer at any rate
On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only GNOME that
plans to depend on logind...
logind is a red herring because AIUI we already have a technical
solution to
Hi,
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only GNOME that
plans to depend on logind...
logind is a red herring because AIUI we already have a technical
solution
On 02/14/2014 09:58 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Hi guys,
So in light of the new announcement[1] how much of L vs T is still
relevant?
Upstart is obviously going to be pretty much dead in the water now given
this - after who is going to seriously contribute to a deprecated
project CLA or no?
It
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le vendredi 14 février 2014 à 13:50 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Josselin Mouette writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing
logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
So either Steve and his cronies commit to maintain a separate systemd204
package (with all the switching issues that scenario involves),
Hi Josselin,
I realize that passions are running high here, and there has been a great
deal of bad blood on both
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:59:34PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only GNOME that
plans to depend on logind...
logind is a
James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com writes:
So in light of the new announcement[1] how much of L vs T is still
relevant?
Mark's announcement may mean that upstart is less likely to be a viable
alternative over time, but it says nothing at all about the other init
systems and their users in
On 02/14/2014 12:14 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:59:34PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only GNOME that
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com writes:
So in light of the new announcement[1] how much of L vs T is still
relevant?
Mark's announcement may mean that upstart is less likely to be a viable
alternative over time, but it says nothing at all about the
On 2014-02-14 10:14:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:59:34PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:49:32PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
I am not so sure it's there. The current version runs without systemd
but doesn't support everything
Based on what? There is only one new interface in logind between v204 and
v208, an
* Andreas Metzler (ametz...@bebt.de) [140119 19:18]:
could you provide a little bit of background why you consider both
Systemd on Linux, openrc/sysv-rc on non-Linux and Upstart
everywhere viable long-term but not systemd on Linux and upstart on
!Linux?
Because upstart won't survive Debians
I brought this up earlier in the discussion, but it appeared right in
the middle of the big argument about what to vote on, and so seems to
have gotten overlooked. I think this pair of requirements, both
grounded in what it's going to take to do upgrades from wheezy in a
clean fashion, might be a
On 02/14/2014 01:52 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:49:32PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
I am not so sure it's there. The current version runs without systemd
but doesn't support everything
Based on what? There is only one new interface in logind between v204 and
v208, an
21 matches
Mail list logo
