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 25/10/13 14:39, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
... a choice between something greatly supported (logind) vs
something abandoned (ConsoleKit).
...
Since the project (on the whole) is fairly divided, I don't think
we should trivialize
Let's tech committee it :)
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers.
Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know
that the decision
should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest
to vote against their
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
so my
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but that is not in their
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:52:38 +0200
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
xz has slow compression, fast decompression. You're not really going to
build packages on any box where compression speed is a blocker, and even if
you do, actually building the package will take a wolf share of the
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
However, it is obviously true that systemd as the default init
system is controversial, and that GNOME depends on it. While GNOME
may work with systemd installed but not PID 1 at the moment, in
another message Uoti
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
so my favourite GR outcome would just say that
Greetings earthlings,
As some of you may know, I've been doing the bulk of the package
maintenance on the mysql package for a while now. It started as part of
my day job with Canonical, but since leaving Canonical it has been more
a labor of love for Debian.
I have love for other things too,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
...I've been
told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs.
The set of hardware which can't boot from DVDs *or* boot from a USB
stick must surely be pretty
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:49:59 +0200
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
...I've been
told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of
users owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs.
The set of
Bastien wrote:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their
project,
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
Hurd kFreeBSD).
Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick
will need to be
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 13:41 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
There is no good reason other than that's the way GNOME has been
written. So change the code and get GNOME to behave properly.
I’m not the one who wants to run GNOME on a random, obsolete and
non-working init system.
--
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Bastien wrote:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but that is not in
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
thanks
In response to the recent threads, I'd like to ask the tech-ctte to
please vote on and decide on the default init system for Debian.
There's been quite a lot of discussion and it's clear no consensus is
coming out of the discussion.
In addition, I
After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port
almost done.
Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully.
The current build status can be found in http://vip.moonux.org/attempted/
Now I get a new board and give it 18GiB DDR3 memory and 1TB hardisk.
Most important
Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
facts, but
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
2013/10/25 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
However, it is obviously true that systemd as the default init
system is controversial, and that GNOME depends on it. While GNOME
may work with systemd installed but not PID
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
please vote on and decide on the default init system for Debian.
It’s not (just) about the _default_ but also on whether we will
force this default init system onto *all* our users, or whether
we commit to support more than one, and if so, how.
This is an *important*
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are “one size fits all”,
nor do they intend to.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
Erm, we already support sysv-rc,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:40:15PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
please vote on and decide on the default init system for Debian.
It’s not (just) about the _default_ but also on whether we will
force this default init system onto *all* our users, or whether
we
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
day for the change
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
It may be, but it's not for the project. Let's let this bug be, and
have the tech cttie decide on *the* init system for Debian. If you want
No, this must really really be decided first.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
diogenese Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:53:52PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
It may be, but it's not for the project. Let's let this bug be, and
have the tech cttie decide on *the* init system for Debian. If you want
No, this must really really be decided first.
Moving bug off
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 18:09, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that
Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, 14:29:54 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
init system.
Pros:
- more features
- stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
- being more similar to one of the other relevant distributions (RHEL or
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:48:29 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
little discussion
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200
Matthias Klumpp m...@debian.org wrote:
2013/10/25 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
It's not about whether the GNOME developers or maintainers should
have chosen one init system or another based on activity of that
system, it's about whether GNOME
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 12:16:04 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
In response to the recent threads, I'd like to ask the tech-ctte to
please vote on and decide on the default init system for Debian.
*Siiigh*, this is a decision that has project-wide
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
Other desktop environments either are reimplementing bits of systemd or
is having some more or less
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:07:09 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
• On a VM, I might want to run very low-consuming software only, to lower
the cost of separating things into VMs of their own. (I’ll be writing a
syslog dæmon some day because sysklogd (three processes, c’mon!) is now
removed
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
*Siiigh*, this is a decision that has project-wide implications
by setting the project's direction, and even if the consititution grants
the tech-ctte this power it's precisely here where a GR would be the most
fair option,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:36:08PM +0200, Marko Randjelovic wrote:
Not quite, xz is also slower than gzip in decompression, cca 3 times,
which is not neglectable on slow machines, especially when installing
large sets of packages.
This is incorrect. xz -[012] is way better in terms of
As a matter of personal preference I would like to see something other than
gnome as default. I've had much better luck converting users from windows,
specifically older and middle aged users, with xfce or lxde.
But this conversation really goes back to the init conversation. On which I
suggest
Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, 17:32:30 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
Other desktop environments either
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
Hurd kFreeBSD).
Not necessarily. We could also decide that
Steve McIntyre wrote:
This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
Thomas Goirand dixit:
and at turning
the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible
upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort,
Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have
to fork the project (or maintain a
I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
servers.
Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:15:02 -0400
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
I do wish that some of the .. energy .. seen in these threads could be
used for something more interesting. For example, find a way to detect
touch screen systems, on which xfce is *not* pleasant, and don't
install a desktop
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
important on it?
Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompatabilities.
Cheers,
Paul
--
And, since I've been informed that this was basically a contentless bug,
I'd like to frame the technical half of the question better:
Whereas:
* the init system / pid 1 is a bit of software that multiple packages provide
* the choice of init system also dictates which types of init scripts
Hi,
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I always assume there are
a few, but you make it sound like it is the majority ;-p
Sune Vuorela wrote:
I've said that for years, but we still haven't changed to KDE Plasma
Desktop as the default.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200, Matthias Klumpp m...@debian.org
wrote:
No, but GNOME has a mission to create a great desktop-environment
which is easy to use and just works. And logind (in combination with
systemd) offers features to accomplish that goal and provides some
truly awesome
Hi,
On Fr 25 Okt 2013 13:52:05 CEST, Olav Vitters wrote:
Note that also various MATE developers have git.gnome.org accounts (I
set that up for them). IIRC they took over one of the deprecated
components.
just for the record: The MATE Packaging Team is preparing the MATE
desktop for
Neil Williams wrote:
Is there one in Debian?
Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
I know that multiple desktop projects are interested in
Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +]:
Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
Yo, Holger!
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
Plasma Active is quite mature and I'm sure the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 20:40, Holger Levsen wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this
is a good thing. (Or maybe it's not, but supporting just one would definitly
be our worst choice at this time.)
As a maintainer of several packages (~10) that provide
Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
I only know what dgit does from reading the source code. dgit works
server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
base for new uploads. It's useful as part of a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
BD) where we can happily install
Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
Plasma Active is quite
On 2013-10-25, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Hmm, I just gave KDE a try with my laptop fliped to tablet mode,
and did not see anything that works better than xfce. I was still stuck
fatfingered with a tiny panel, and once I started konqueror, could
not drag to scroll the page, or make any
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:19:30PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
Is there one in Debian?
Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
approaching usable GUI support, even discounting
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:31:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
upstart, I know that the decision should
On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
that's in place for these packages in Ubuntu.
Aren't these folks working
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk
* Package name: libjs-img.srcset
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : David Knight
* URL : https://github.com/weblinc/img-srcset
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Javascript
Description
Hi Paul,
Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte, I
can't help but think it's premature.
The systemd maintainers have never said that they believe systemd is ready to
be the default init nor whether they could handle supporting it if the decision
was made
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot infrastructure:
2013/10/25 Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org:
[...]
One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my
employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself
from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that
would be generally understood
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Hi Paul,
Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte,
Thank you, I'm happy to hear it came across that way (it's how it was
done, FWIW)
I can't help but think it's premature.
Perhaps.
The
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
little discussion around a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
that's
On Oct 25, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
In the long term, we certainly need a decision for the default init system
in Debian.
No: we need one in the short term to be able to support it in jessie, or
we will be stuck with an antiquated init system for many more years.
--
ciao,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte,
I can't help but think it's premature.
The systemd maintainers have never said that they believe systemd is ready to
be the default init nor whether they could handle supporting it if the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
They have proposed a release goal that is probably a necessary
prerequisite for default init but has not yet been achieved. (I wouldn't
expect it to be, yet. We aren't releasing for ages.)
No. The decision of the default
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:42:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are
Colin Watson wrote:
I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing
subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my
vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring
relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 14:21 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
servers.
Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
Not when one of the nonsensical arguments used for systemd-bashing is
that it would be
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is
a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:09:44PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Are either of the alternatives, at the versions currently in Debian
testing, ready for the migration? (I have no idea, I'm wondering out
loud).
upstart is two package integration uploads away from being ready.
How long might the
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
will keep supporting Upstart
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 18:15 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
The option existed to make the desired features optional and that
option was deliberately written out in an effort to extend GNOME beyond
a desktop.
Oh, but of course these features are optional. You can still run GNOME
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's own
merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of a
fait-accompli systemd is part of the GNOME dependency chain, so tough
then I am quite happy to dismiss systemd as an
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 13:36 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
I firmly
believe that GNOME threw away that justification with GNOME Shell and
if GNOME persists in the eye-candy approach and then adds an entirely
unjustifiable dependency from a *desktop* to an *init* system then I
have no
Le ven. 25 oct. 2013 21:34:39 CEST, Joey Hess a écrit :
Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
I only know what dgit does from reading the source code. dgit works
server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
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
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Isnât that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
important on it?
Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
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,
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes:
To cut a long story short, I am not convinced that by open sourcing my
code I am acquiring a moral obligation to take into account the
preferences of potential users in future versions - no matter how large
(or vocal) the userbase.
+1
Obviously, there
Nikolaus Rath dixit:
To cut a long story short, I am not convinced that by open sourcing my
code I am acquiring a moral obligation to take into account the
preferences of potential users in future versions - no matter how large
But that’s just the thing! You are!
Of course, only in a way, and
Andy Cater wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
BD) where we
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
As someone who deals with a lot of random donated hardware, I can
attest that we run into these cases frequently. It may be rare that
new systems lack these
Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
feel. Let's change the default desktop for
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:15AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
will keep supporting
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:56:20PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I do see quite an amount of ignorance and pushing regarding adoption of
systemd and GNOME. I fully accept that it may be difficult to agree on a way
forward? but currently I get the impression that any neither GNOME nor
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 07:51 -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ian Campbell i...@hellion.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
...I've been
told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
owning/running
[Not defending the rather odd NMU practice here, but ...]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:57:24PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Until then there's no action needed to make it work in Debian. Debian is
not Ubuntus development platform, so why should one NMU stuff for this
when it's not needed in
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Also, I was not in a position to try gnome 3.4 myself at all, hardware,
and bandwidth wise, until rather too late in the release cycle. I didn't
see conclusive proof that gnome 3.4 was really the wrong default for
wheezy until I
XFCE is short of maintainers, both upstream and debian, but 4.12 is
expected to be released sometime in the next 6 months. That said,
everything both debian and upstream is stable, and a number of 4.11
development release packages are able to be uploaded to experimental
if more people come
Why should I have installed packages I'm not using and I don't want to
use? I know it's rhetorical question but not all systems are having
enough disk space besides I don't like have packages I'm not using on
my systems. So it's not a solution to anything just kind a nasty
workaround.
For people who just don't care, are you doing them a favour by installing
xfce rather than GNOME?
I don't think so. Most of the things people hate about GNOME are things that
GNOME is doing to specifically target people who just don't care.
Personally I wouldn't put Gnome 3 in front of new
Pros:
* CD#1 will work again without size worries
* Smaller, simpler desktop
* Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
* Does not depend on replacing init
* Users can pick and choose components and drop down the size
significantly such as for debian embedded or security
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
eliminate
* 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
101 - 200 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
