Bug#727708: Init system resolution open questions
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:01:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I think that major packages that would be considered release blockers, which probably includes GNOME, KDE, and Xfce, need to support the default Linux init system in the sense that, if they don't, I don't think we can release. I think a substantial degredation of functionality when running on an init system other than the Linux default would be okay for for jessie+1. For jessie, I think it depends greatly on how feasible making them work with sysvinit is (and I suspect sysvinit support would be sufficient for all other purposes). I think we should move away from them target that the non-Linux ports should build the entire archive. FreeBSD upstream isn't a desktop OS and never will be, there're just too many deficiencies (e.g. lack of dbus, limited hardware support, only OSS sound drivers, limited KMS/3D support in Xorg etc. pp). So why should the Debian port with it's minimal porters achieve what upstream doesn't deliver? And for Hurd it's even more obvious. All the use cases mentioned for Debian kfreebsd are server-based (e.g. pf or NAS using ZFS). Why not focus on a useful subsection of Debian and get that right instead of fighting an uphill battle? Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140117150548.ga6...@inutil.org
Bug#727708: systemd (security) bugs (was: init system question)
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 12:11:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: More review and more usage will lead to more bugs being found, we should rather applaud Red Hat for investing resources and be diligent. After all Red Hat is the only distro staffing a proactive product security team (from which everyone is profiting outside of RH as well). I don't consider the lack of reported security issues for the contenders as a credible indication of them being more secure. Red Hat shipped upstart as their init system in RHEL 6. This did not result in any CVEs being issued for upstart. What conclusions should we draw from this? None. The RH Product Security Team didn't exist back then (founded 1.5 years ago). Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131203210029.ga24...@inutil.org
Bug#607368: Please decide how kernel ABI should be managed
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:30:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: reopen 607368 tags 607368 - wontfix reassign 607368 tech-ctte retitle 607368 Please decide how kernel ABI should be managed thanks Hi, I am hereby asking the tech-ctte to decide how the kernel ABI should be managed. Case in point: the kernel team decided to ignore changes to the smp_ops symbol in 2.6.32-28 which broke external modules (vmware) without any prior warning. FWIW; the ABI handling has been fairly strict during the lifetime of a stable release. I'm not aware that the same situation has occured during the Etch or Lenny lifetime. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101219185120.ga10...@galadriel.inutil.org
