On Sat, 2013-12-21 at 19:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes:
On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That said, the display managers in Debian other than kdm and gdm are not
ready for systemd at the moment. I had to switch to gdm3 to use systemd
❦ 22 décembre 2013 14:41 CET, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net :
Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
(Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
for nearly a year.
I am also using lightdm + systemd because slimd has some problems
Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net writes:
Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
(Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
for nearly a year.
It's possible I had some local configuration issue of which I was unaware.
I'll probably
On 2013-12-22 09:31:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net writes:
Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
(Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
for nearly a year.
It's possible I had some local
I'm replying to an old message, but...
On 2013-10-23 23:06:39 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes:
I've spent several hours to find what was wrong with lightdm, and
eventually found the culprit earlier today: just the fact that the
systemd package was installed! So, yes, systemd currently breaks things,
even if it is not used (I don't use GNOME
On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes:
I've spent several hours to find what was wrong with lightdm, and
eventually found the culprit earlier today: just the fact that the
systemd package was installed! So, yes, systemd currently breaks
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes:
On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That said, the display managers in Debian other than kdm and gdm are not
ready for systemd at the moment. I had to switch to gdm3 to use systemd
(by which I mean booting with it) because neither slim
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:47:00PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And this is not just
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
Whoah,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
init, but
On 2013-10-27, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote:
* Some people say this means it needs systemd running as pid=1, same say it
doesn't. Am still confused here.
The facts seems to be that logind/systemd in version 204 (the current
one in debian) doesn't need systemd as pid 1, but
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 07:12:21PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
(As far as I can tell this is the actual root of the problem, at least
for this iteration of the argument: the fact that logind now requires
systemd.)
That's due to cgroups change. There seem to be 2 other potential
implementations
]] Brian May
On 28 October 2013 07:52, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
- /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules - udev rules that will be active on
any system with /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd present (because of logind,
this
directory is not a good proxy for whether pid1 ==
On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages
Can this be taken off-list? I don't care either way, I'd still take his
points even if he wasn't.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I'm fed up
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (2013-10-27):
If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
That comes to mind:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Olav+Vitters+Gnome
https://lists.debian.org/20131024192452.ga29...@bkor.dhs.org
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2013-10-27, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
Olav is a gnome developer, yes.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
]] Steve Langasek
Formally, it only requires that the dbus services be available, which is
given by installing the systemd package, not by running it as init.
That's actually due to a missing feature in the dbus daemon: it should
either have a way to key off init/file system features (so I
On 28 October 2013 07:52, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
- /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules - udev rules that will be active on
any system with /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd present (because of logind,
this
directory is not a good proxy for whether pid1 == systemd).
That's a bug
So my current understanding:
* Gnome use to depend on ConsoleKit.
* ConsoleKit is no longer maintained, and no one is interested in
maintaining it.
* As a result, Gnome switched to using the implementation from systemd
instead, as it has needed features and is actively being maintained.
* Some
On 10/27/2013 06:41 PM, Brian May wrote:
So my current understanding:
* Gnome use to depend on ConsoleKit.
* ConsoleKit is no longer maintained, and no one is interested in
maintaining it.
* As a result, Gnome switched to using the implementation from
systemd instead, as it has needed
* Gnome is said to work fine even on platforms that don't have
systemd installed.
My understanding from what I've read is that it works fine except in
that the features which the ConsoleKit-or-logind dependency provides
aren't available. That's derived from indirect statements from
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
I actually went to the
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:06 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?
Well, gdm3 does not start for a new
But that alone is not an argument against introducing new technologies.
One just has to be careful in what is done.
Not against new technologies in general but if you are talking about
something which you expect every Linux user to use (when actually they
can't in deep embedded etc.) then yes
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:29AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
Sorry, I've implicitly meant all _of their_ users. My apologies.
I write a
Lars Wirzenius liw at liw.fi writes:
I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should
[…]
can be, and I think that the storage format I've
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.)
GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. It has been
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
it, and Torvalds’ opinions are
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:37:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
I'm missing a key bit
* it is buggy. I did install a straightforward install of experimental
GNOME to test if it improved even a bit, running systemd as init, and, with
2G RAM assigned to the machine, I got an OOM from one of systemd's
components. Excuse me for not looking more closely but purging the machine
I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some
sort of oversight on
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:00 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
* CVE 2013-4327 - Towards a world where even simple systems and
firewalls are vulnerable!
p.s. CVE-2013-4392, CVE-2013-4391 and I think I've missed out the really
bad one to do with remote connection.
On one hand I agree, we see
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:28PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
is said to disable the ability
On 10/24/2013 10:45 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
I think you'd basically need a completely separate logind
package for non-systemd systems.
And if you think this is work that must be done, then it is YOUR
responsibility to do it. It's not the systemd maintainers'
responsibility to implement new
Brian May brian at microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon has:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, m68k,
powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]
That’s just
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:22:50PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On 24 October 2013 07:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer
cales...@scientia.netwrote:
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
just recall the most epic flamewar in Debian's history),
Peh it wasn't *that* epic. I recall some truly awful ones in around 2006
to which the systemd ones pale in comparison. (Do not interpret this as
a challenge.)
--
To
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
some old vserver instances at $WORK. I am astonished to see that you are
still using them. I didn't think they'd rebased
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work
that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
being done.
I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
it should
Le 24/10/2013 10:54, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work
that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
being done.
I have a lot of respect for
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
some old vserver instances at $WORK.
lxc is still
]] Thibaut Paumard
The split has already been done, hasn't it? Merely installing the
systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
for that to happen.
No, that's not a split. That's a set of
On 24 October 2013 10:59, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
* it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this
personally
(mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:46:49AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
OpenVZ is in mainline Linux now. You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in
Debian, as we can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know
whether the vzctl
On 2013-10-23 22:22, Brian May wrote:
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon [1] has:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]
So doesn't break Gnome where
On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should
be ready for jessie.
Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
My apologies, I overreacted.
Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be
On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
My apologies, I overreacted.
Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
(how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
are silence
Adrian wrote:
Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.
Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:40 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should
be ready for jessie.
Until
On 10/24/2013 05:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.
Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.
Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
was
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:29:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
was repeating what one of the proposals were.
/
| Proposed Release Goals
| ==
|
| The call for release goals has finished and we
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:05 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.
Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.
I just wondered... when and how is this going to be decided? I mean,
whether
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:16 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?
No. But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.
Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
My
Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
* it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
(mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
over the whole cgroups
On 24/10/13 16:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
doesn't it?
I believe the effect of not having systemd-logind is that the features
for which GNOME uses
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:25:12PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
* it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
(mostly because of the above point),
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
GNOME deals with some critical things...
Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with outrageously? Do you mean someone
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with outrageously?
Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war.
There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is
known now
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.
This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian
Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
from here,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
Whoah, that's not true:
sudo systemd-nspawn -bD ~/images/fedora-19
works just fine :)
On 24/10/13 03:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should
be
separated out in the packaging.
Some of the services consume
On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.netwrote:
Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
blessings (most of the time broken, e.g.
No, no, no… drop GNOME.
Useless anyway.
--
Mark
On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net
wrote:
Hi.
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:39 +1100, Brian May wrote:
If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.
Well actually it's not that easy to avoid all of it, at least you get
some libraries even when using 3rd party GTK/GNOME apps.
Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
No, no, no… drop GNOME.
Useless anyway.
You really think such comments will help anyone or actually lead to
dropping it? o.O
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 25 October 2013 06:37, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that systemd be installed? Or does it require that the init
system be systemd?
Me too. Am getting rather lost as to why gnome-settings-daemon depends
On 25 October 2013 10:54, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote:
* The Debian packages of Gnome currently will not install on non-Linux
systems.
Seems I was mislead. On hurd and kfreebsd, gnome-settings-daemon does not
depend on systemd.
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
No, no, no… drop GNOME.
Useless anyway.
1. Don't top-post.
2. Assume good faith.
3. This list is for discussion of Debian development, not for random
opinions.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame
Russ Allbery wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that systemd be installed? Or does it require that the init
system be systemd?
To not be provided with a choice is utterly *horrible*.
from_userspace
There is init, upstart and sytemd; the linux boot manager
(GRUB) is a JOKE; see extlinux - use what the kernel devsuse.
Perhaps we should appeal to the BSD community.
:wq
:q
```:q
One can't help but wonder if we've
Le 25/10/2013 00:39, Brian May a écrit :
On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer
cales...@scientia.net mailto:cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
They continuously try
Hi.
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.
I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
for me not yet production
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:06 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.
I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.
I wouldn't have any issues
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:06:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
integration - or at
On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
No, please reread that mail from the release team. It is a *proposal* from
the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support. The release
team
have not said that they have endorsed this as a release goal (and frankly,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
No, please reread that mail from the release team. It is a *proposal*
from the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support. The
release team have not
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The problem is the scope creep. It's perfectly fine for
gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;
No, not even that, as long as xfce4[1] and other non-GNOME environments
require
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
separated out
On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
* it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
(mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
kernel
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus
Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
push an agenda. And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
Well, that's one more
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
push an
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The problem is the scope creep. It's perfectly fine for
gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;
No, not even that, as long as
On 24 October 2013 07:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.netwrote:
In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon has:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386,
100 matches
Mail list logo
