+++ Faidon Liambotis [2012-08-11 03:48 +0300]:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example,
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
In the beginning, ConsoleKit didn’t allow
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
On 08/13/2012 04:50 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
any use case except (some) embedded systems.
If the time will come the interested parties will fork udev,
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-08-11 11:30]:
We are not dismissing any other alternative, upstart still looks like
an option.
We are dismissing just openrc because its incremental benefits are
trivial.
You don't speak on behalf of the debian project so please refrein from
using we -
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 03:12:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think Steve's point is that the goal is to make Debian technically
excellent. Sometimes that means providing choice, and sometimes it
doesn't. All things being equal, I think a system that's flexible is more
technically
On Aug 13, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Isn't forking udev something similar to working on mdev? How many people
No, you just have to look at the code bases and features set to
understand why.
At many level, udev has been really annoying, breaking upgrades and so on.
I can't help
On 08/13/2012 05:20 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
As one wrote previously: mdev and OpenRC lack hostile upstreams! :)
They also lack solving large parts of the problem space.
I don't think anyone denies that fact. Hopefully, this will change.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
I did start the initial Debian
packaging work last night though.
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
I did start the initial Debian
packaging work last night though.
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
It's here:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
Just to bring this back on topic, if the initial tests of OpenRC
show it to be viable and that it's possible to upgrade seamlessly
from sysv-rc, then I would propose to drop sysv-rc entirely, rather
than having a choice here. OpenRC would be a
On 13.08.2012 00:50, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 12, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen
On Aug 12, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)
If this will become
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely - Lennart
On Aug 12, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
any use case except (some) embedded systems.
❦ 11 août 2012 01:12 CEST, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org :
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that occasionally.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example,
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Exactly! And in this particular case, the vendor is RedHat, and
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
just because it *seem* to look better *now*,
On 08/11/2012 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote
Exactly! And in this particular case, the vendor is RedHat, and
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
just
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^
Please stop saying we. *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 08/11/2012 10:29 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^
Please stop saying we. *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 01:12:10, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
That doesn't sound like an inherent systemd
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
It *does* work for me here - KDM doesn't
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 18:02:04, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow shutdown/reboot
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
[...]
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent operating
system that meets our users needs.
Developers
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent
operating system that meets our users needs.
Developers need the freedom to *make* autonomous technical choices as
part of the process
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 00:53 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin a écrit :
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow
users to replace the system C
Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org writes:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of
supporting that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and
the final goal is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For
example, we
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:53:45AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that occasionally.
Exactly!
34 matches
Mail list logo
