On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:42:30 +0200, Holger Levsen
hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote:
We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway.
why do you think so?
Because I think that a decision of this magnitude should not be taken
by a single
On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:31:02 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make udev
depend on either upstart or systemd.
I would rather not be the one who will choose which one of them, so
I hope that we will get to a consensus about
Hi Marc,
On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote:
We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway.
why do you think so?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh.
I forgot about that (partly because of workarounds), but due to the
SIGINT problem, I think that *currently*, among these 3 shells, bash
is the most suitable one, and mksh is a bit
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 05:29:45PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
Currently, due to the totaly screwed up
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
to be able to have more than *2* packages
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Being able to choose between two entirely different desktop
environments, with different user experiences, is a good thing.
Being able to choose between two /bin/sh
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
to be able to have more than *2* packages
Hi Thorsten
On 11-05-13 20:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Steve Langasek vorlon at debian.org writes:
This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal,
the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh
for *everyone*.
Sure. We just disagree
On 15-05-13 17:39, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above,
I’m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course
I’d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a
thing not driven by me;
I see.
In that
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:39:54PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above,
I???m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course
I???d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a
thing not
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Andreas Beckmann anbe at debian.org writes:
now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals
for jessie. Here are some points that come into my mind right now (and
* Resolve that /bin/sh issue (see
]] brian m. carlson
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as
]] brian m. carlson
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Helmut Grohne helmut at subdivi.de writes:
What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was ???suddenly??? in
Debian after having been used in Ubuntu,
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 23:26 +, brian m. carlson a écrit :
For better or for worse, sysvinit provides a lot of modularity. systemd
provides none of that modularity
Maybe you should read a bit about systemd before saying such nonsense.
The real-world systemd (not the imaginary software you
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you work for Canonical (which totally explains some
of your writings in the other eMail too, which I’m not going to comment
on). Of course, for *buntu people it’s not about choice.
I think you are totally out
On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh.
[...]
I have no idea whether yash or zsh can be made suitable, but I think
both could, if the maintainers and possibly upstream are interested.
Though zsh has an option to emulate
Jonathan Dowland jmtd at debian.org writes:
I think you are totally out of order, here. You could equally be
criticised
of having your judgement clouded by your involvement with MirOS. That
would
I admit being biased for that very reason. And that’s also the reason
I try to push for freedom of
On 05/14/2013 06:07 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
He missed the fact that you were contrasting one non-crashing init, that
is capable of restarting dead services, with another non-crashing
init setup that is not able to do so (without help).
Oh, indeed I missed that point! Thanks Phil.
Thomas
--
On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
I have still hard time to consider that you absolutely did not mention
something related to a bootloader.
I believe Phil Hands explained better than I would
what I tried to explain.
On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
Like in the previous
Am 15.05.2013 02:12, schrieb Michael Biebl:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:33:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Though zsh has an option to emulate sh, it may still not be completely
compatible. Upstream fixes incompatibilities when it is easy. But some
incompatibilities may remain. If sh needs special multibyte (UTF-8)
support for some
On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit :
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
[citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if
something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes
and fails to reload properly because
Helmut Grohne helmut at subdivi.de writes:
What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in
Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there never was an
evaluation of shells.
I still believe the
On 05/14/2013 04:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your
other disk bootable.
This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message
compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you
have apache, it's easier to
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if
something important crashes. On a production server, if apache
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
...
forcing the rest of the world to conform to our worldview. One
desktop environment, and an awful one at that, dictating the
init system we use is a complete farce. Debian is a lot bigger
than GNOME, and if we have to, I'd
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:59 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Helmut Grohne helmut at subdivi.de writes:
What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in
Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Helmut Grohne helmut at subdivi.de writes:
What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
Why does dash get special treatment, anyway?
Because /bin/sh is special under Debian policy, as an essential
❦ 14 mai 2013 11:54 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your
other disk bootable.
This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message
compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you
have apache,
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
see a use case where it is not better.
It is not better if you don't want proprietary
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
see a use case where it is not better.
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
see a use case where it is not better.
On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have
And, when it comes to processing, binary data is actually *easier* to
process. Everyone who has ever written a text parser themselves will
agree.
I guess everyone who has used grep, tr, sed and so on will disagree?
--
Salvo Tomaselli
http://web.student.chalmers.se/~saltom/
--
To
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other
❦ 11 mai 2013 22:08 CEST, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org :
I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
fields for a multitude of different purposes. No one init is
appropriate for all of these
On Du, 12 mai 13, 20:31:08, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The difference between a shell and an init system is that the former
is directly exposed to the user while the latter will only be
visible to developers and admins most of the time. It makes sense to
be able to customize your user
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:31:02AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 13, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument,
that
we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
the
kfreebsd
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On May 13, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument, that
we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
the
kfreebsd port uses $that init system, I'd
On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote:
Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make
udev
depend on either upstart or systemd.
do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever explaining
the rationale behind this?
i didn't found anything on FOSDEM
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:05:59AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn???t help you if
something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes
and fails to reload properly because the scripts don???t get the ordering
right, it
On May 13, gustavo panizzo gfa g...@zumbi.com.ar wrote:
On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote:
Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to
make udev depend on either upstart or systemd.
do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever
explaining the
On May 13, Philip Hands p...@hands.com wrote:
No matter what the technical merits, the inevitable flame war regarding
copyright assignment seems very likely to render upstart a non-starter
as an essential element of Debian.
I think that this is a reasonable element to consider in our decision
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
system, other than laziness.
Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start
up / shut down services. The separation then gets quite blurry with
whom
2013/5/13 Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
system, other than laziness.
Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start
up / shut down services. The
2013/5/14 Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com:
2013/5/13 Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
system, other than laziness.
Except if you want to receive device plug events as
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:40:53 +0800, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org
wrote:
On 05/12/2013 03:44 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
unusable trainwreck. It's a disgrace that this shipped as the
default desktop for wheezy, it really is.
Like for
On 13209 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote:
Like for everything in Debian, this is bound to someone killing
the concept of a default Desktop. It is indeed a shame that
nobody worked on that.
What is planned to do so? I surely hope that we don't end up building
Kebian, Gebian and Xebian Images, which
On 05/12/2013 09:56 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Not sure when you did it last (or rleigh or zigo) - but: Take a look at
what CDs we over.
What you hope - we already do. We have CDs which default to KDE, XFCE or
LXDE for those who dislike the GNOME feature-removitis.
Which is very different from
On Du, 12 mai 13, 23:12:48, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Which is very different from being able to select, in d-i,
what desktop you want (for example using the netinst CD).
This is already possible (from the boot menu).
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
see a use case where it is not better.
With all due respect, this might be utter
On 05/12/2013 07:40 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
[citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those
systems appears like a difficult task and
2013/5/12 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de:
Honestly, you simply can't expect every single package in Debian to run on
any of the supported kernels. If systemd profits from the use of
Linux-specific kernel features, which is a good thing in my humble opinion
because Linux
Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit :
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
[citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those
systems appears like a
Hi,
On Montag, 13. Mai 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I was all for kfreebsd when it was proposed, but now that it exists and
nobody uses it, I am appalled at the idea of using it as an excuse to
stop making improvements to the linux ports.
actually, while it has been brought up as a
On May 13, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument, that
we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
the
kfreebsd port uses $that init system, I'd say nobody is seriously saying this
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:46:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
configurations of a Debian installation
On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash or
bash can be /bin/sh.
I think that
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-v-b at web.de writes:
Add 2 more if dash and mksh build static flavours too. posh, ksh93,
mksh already builds a static flavour ;-) It’s just not an mksh-static
separate binary package because waldi, who kindly sponsored my first
several uploads, taught me that binary
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:46:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
My stated goal here is, indeed, to be
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-05-11 18:33:03)
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...] the real goal of the change was to be able to have more than
*2* packages provide /bin/sh.
Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash
or
Steve Langasek vorlon at debian.org writes:
This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal,
the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh
for *everyone*.
Sure. We just disagree which one that is.
See also: Linux is not about choice.
On 2013-05-11 20:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you work for Canonical (which totally explains some
of your writings in the other eMail too, which I’m not going to comment
on). Of course, for *buntu people it’s not about choice.
Now please take that attitude and go back to
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:17:51PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-05-11 18:33:03)
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...] the real goal of the change was to be able to have more than
*2* packages provide /bin/sh.
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 18:26 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
See also: Linux is not about choice.
Debian is not just about Linux.
Yes it is. We have had two releases with kfreebsd, which failed to
provide anything usable. Debian is only about Linux, and has always
been.
In Debian,
Niels Thykier dixit:
I believe you are being needlessly rude right now. Please keep in mind
Probably… but I think Canonical employees and *buntu developers have
a conflict of interest, which *does* have “interesting” effects, such
as wheezy releasing with different gcc versions being default
On 2013-05-11 20:53, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
that:
The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. [1]
That includes Canonical and *buntu.
… but that doesn’t give either preferential treatment.
I never said that and I never said I took Steve's side; I have
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 18:53 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
I believe you are being needlessly rude right now. Please keep in mind
Probably… but I think Canonical employees and *buntu developers have
a conflict of interest, which *does* have “interesting” effects, such
as wheezy
2013/5/11 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
We have had two releases with kfreebsd, which failed to
provide anything usable. Debian is only about Linux, and has always
been.
I have some news about it ;-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Being able to choose between two entirely different desktop
environments, with different user experiences, is a good thing.
Being able to choose between two /bin/sh shells or two /sbin/init
implementations is not.
The shell I
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
fields for a multitude of different purposes. No one init is
appropriate for all of these
2013/5/12 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
GNOME depends on a working glibc, too. Does it dictate the C library?
Yes. Portability still makes sense. Portability is a part of the word
Free in Free Software.
Debian is about Free Software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Debian is about Free Software.
Actually, about Free Users, isn't it?
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freedom-for-users-not-for-software
bye,
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
unusable trainwreck.
This is your opinion. There are other users who happen to value features
over
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 22:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
fields for a multitude of different
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way
On 05/12/2013 03:44 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
unusable trainwreck. It's a disgrace that this shipped as the
default desktop for wheezy, it really is.
Like for everything in Debian, this is bound to someone killing
the concept of a
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
configurations of a Debian installation without *both* bash and dash
installed.
What is the point?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
configurations of a Debian installation without *both* bash and dash
installed.
What is the point?
A
On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:46:43 +0200
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
configurations of
84 matches
Mail list logo
