Serge,
I'm in the favor of having a try with OpenRC, and see what we can do,
but here, your post is a bit naive at least in some cases. Let me
explain why.
On 09/05/2012 11:47 AM, Serge wrote:
I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their
own solution instead of helping
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Sorry for writing such a long email, but I believe that having
a welcoming environment is very important for debian.
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare
Hey Svante,
On Samstag, 1. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
Svante, maybe you should
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
...
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly
Hi again,
On Sonntag, 2. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
I am completely calm. And I do apologise, I am sorry for suggesting that
somebody steps down from the project. That was wrong, admitted.
thanks! (a lot.)
However, for the statement above, calling everything not in line with
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 19:34 +0300, Serge a écrit :
Yeah, one init system, one kernel, one libc, one distribution, one
window manager, one OS. Looks like a windows-way. :)
There’s a huge difference between being able to switch between window
managers and to switch between init/kernel/libc.
Le samedi 01 septembre 2012 à 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times smaller),
Code size is a compelling argument only with the same set of features.
Which is not the case.
to
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a official Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd, and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo switches to
systemd from OpenRC and Debian switches
On 09/02/12 20:43, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a official Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd,
No.
and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo
Le 31 août 2012 10:06, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org a écrit :
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
But toy ports and toy init systems are part of what makes Debian less
Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
But toy ports and toy init systems are part of
Le Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 09:02:06PM +0200, Svante Signell a écrit :
Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
In general I am for
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it have all of those features? Should it require support from other
packages? (Are
On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Darren Salt lists...@moreofthesa.me.uk wrote:
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
If it's about just
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
One good init system can answer all our needs, while four bad ones will
certainly not.
I fully agree.
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we shouldn't be
messing around with it. Focus on the best
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
If it's about just adding more bugs without bringing anything good
with it — sure,
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we
shouldn't be messing around with it. Focus on the best solution,
period.
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless
On 08/31/2012 03:50 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
That means there is someone who will pester other maintainers to “fix”
their init scripts so that they work with another half-baked init
implementation.
Ah... And that will not happen with systemd? Come on, we all
know that we will have to
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying that you not only reduce the number
of bugs in
On 09/01/2012 04:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
There should be at least some compelling technical arguments for
OpenRC.
There are, and they have been listed already.
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times
On 09/01/12 04:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this
On 08/19/2012 07:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the
On 08/10/2012 10:55 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 10, Philip Hands p...@hands.com wrote:
Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
On 08/10/2012 09:25 AM, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-09 23:15]:
And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
value. Linux is not about choice.
Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Strong ack. I'm using open source software
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We don't have a particularly good way of handling this situation right now
other than one-off work on each package that may need to be treated
unusually. It's a bit difficult for the maintainer to determine the
implications for the
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
should consider changing the Architecture line to
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [120820 20:21]:
I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
to mean collective interests
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the failing
port.
That's about a
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of toy ports?
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:41:15PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of toy ports?
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org writes:
Of course, if GNOME is unused one could just remove it completely from
those ports, but I doubt that your approach of it's just a minute of
work to RM it is welcomed. (Well, the maintainers would probably like
it, as long as there won't be bugs claiming
Le lundi 20 août 2012 à 18:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
to mean collective
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:47:43 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
We. In the same way you say we when you claim to be talking
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:14:22 +0800, Aron Xu happyaron...@gmail.com
wrote:
For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
so. I'm not using those ports everyday but I respect their passion and
efforts.
Amen. I
On 12942 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
ports.
Marc Haber wrote:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
There are people who use their time doing things like hopping across a
continent on one foot. That is a lot of work, but it's not
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
exotic ports to stop this
On 19.08.2012 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
--
|8]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
In the absense of regression tests, we
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify
On Aug 18, Aron Xu happyaron...@gmail.com wrote:
For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
so.
I am not, but I understand that arguing about this is much easier than
arguing that incomplete ports used
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 13:27]:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other
Hi Marco,
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Aug 10, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement
for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that).
So do the other init systems.
The point is what they
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 01:06]:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-09 23:15]:
And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
value. Linux is not about choice.
Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 10:12]:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the
On Aug 10, Philip Hands p...@hands.com wrote:
Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
interest is in what Debian developers will do.
So,
On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
c library: glibc, eglibc, dietlibc
They exist, and
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-08-10 11:27]:
On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other alternatives, the
differences are extremely tiny.
How is
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:03:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 10/08/2012 08:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:16:17AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Wasn't the idea of porting to non-Linux rejected by upstart's upstream?
Porting upstart to non-Linux kernels has never
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
There are two main issues with trying to support multiple init systems.
The first one is the time needed to do it. The second and more important
one is being limited by the features of the less capable implementation,
which would
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 00:50 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: XU Benda hero...@gentoo.org
* Package name: openrc
Version : 0.10.5
Upstream Author : Gentoo OpenRC Team ope...@gentoo.org
* URL : http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/openrc/
* License : 2 clause BSD
Programming Lang: C,
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
We do not need to be able to choose among multiple init implementations.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 2012-08-09 15:54:05 +0200 (+0200), Marco d'Itri wrote:
Please do not bother.
[...]
Last I recall from that thread, Roger Leigh was coordinating with
Gentoo upstream to incorporate/wrap the necessary functionality to
parse LSB header comments already present in Debian's init scripts.
He also
On Aug 09, The Fungi fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
So I would assume this ITP is merely an outcome of that debian-devel
discussion,
I think that the outcome of that discussion was that openrc would be too
little too late for Debian, and that it is proven that trying to support
well multiple init
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-08-09 16:12]:
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
It was a very long discussion that did not end in a major consensus the
way I
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
openrc is not acceptable from the very start, as it lacks a key
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 18:42 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
We do not need to be able to choose among multiple init implementations.
According to my latest information only the DPL may speak on behalf of
the project which can by overridden by way of a GR. I therefore conclude
that YOU
On 09/08/12 15:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
We do not need to be able to choose among multiple init implementations.
What about
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:40:44PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of toy ports?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:37:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 09, The Fungi fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
So I would assume this ITP is merely an outcome of that debian-devel
discussion,
I think that the outcome of that discussion was that openrc would be too
little too late for
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:51:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:40:44PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Please do not bother.
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:50:43AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the
Hi!
systemd's upstream is not hostile at all - systemd just relies on many
Linux-specific technologies, not just cgroups, and therefore it is not
easily possible to port it. Upstream suggested to fork systemd and
maintain patches for other OSes there, because they don't want a
construct with lots
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:16:17AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Wasn't the idea of porting to non-Linux rejected by upstart's upstream?
Porting upstart to non-Linux kernels has never been rejected by upstream.
It just requires porters to do the porting; no one involved in upstart
upstream has
On 10/08/2012 08:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:16:17AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Wasn't the idea of porting to non-Linux rejected by upstart's upstream?
Porting upstart to non-Linux kernels has never been rejected by upstream.
It just requires porters to do the
On Aug 10, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement
for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that).
So do the other init systems.
The point is what they can do which sysvinit (and openrc) cannot.
--
On 08/09/2012 09:54 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and systemd.
That's clearly *not* truth.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
79 matches
Mail list logo
