Hi,
On Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Agreed, we should do the switch sooner rather then later.
Let me follow up on the actual switch in a separate thread.
this has not happened yet, shall I file bugs against the general pseudo
package so we have some means to track this?
We
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:36:08PM +0200]:
And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never
want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a
load of them.
Joerg, please be reasonable.
I entirely am, and thats why such a hate
On 2014-07-03, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
On 13626 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
Joerg, please be reasonable.
I entirely am, and thats why such a hate package won't bypass me, unless
there is one of
a CTTE decision,
a GR forcing me, or
the ftp team overruling me.
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-03 03:14:21)
may I suggest the Blends framework to those who want metapackages that
influence what is installed by default on their system ?
Currently, one of the main limits of the Blends framework is that it
works mostly by installing metapackages after a
Le jeudi 03 juillet 2014 à 07:36 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
You will never get xfce via an indirect 4-step dependency chain,
but systemd comes in due to being the first alternative
with lots of packages.
Just like ConsoleKit used to.
For the *exact* same reasons.
Yet I didn’t see any
Yet I didn't see any proposal for a consolekit-must-die package=
Must be because most people did not even get consolekit installed.
Or because it was not that intrusive?
(People in the know avoided *kit for a long time already anyway.)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
This thread seems to be discussing the wrong problems[1].
We currently have the problem that systemd is still not installed by
default by debootstrap, despite the tech ctte decision being made months
ago. It's not clear what the right solution to that is; should
debootstrap special-case systemd
On 13626 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never
want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a
load of them.
Joerg, please be reasonable.
I entirely am, and thats
Am 03.07.2014 18:45, schrieb Joey Hess:
This thread seems to be discussing the wrong problems[1].
We currently have the problem that systemd is still not installed by
default by debootstrap, despite the tech ctte decision being made months
ago. It's not clear what the right solution to that
On Ma, 01 iul 14, 15:57:41, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:26:53 +0400
vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
I think you can just put
Package: systemd
Pin: origin
Pin-Priority: -1
If what you actually intend is to retain sysvinit-core, it would need
to be systemd-sysv
Most
On 07/02/2014 03:52 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs showing what pulled systemd
in on the system?
Sent by private mail. If anyone else wants a copy, please drop me a note.
-- Juliusz
Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker.
Thomas
--
❦ 1 juillet 2014 21:17 +0200, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org :
As of this writing 204, is already over 1 year old and will be grossly
outdated once jessie releases. It also misses a lot of important
functionality.
That missing functionality is holding back other maintainers, like the
GNOME
On 07/02/2014 12:09 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an annoying waste of
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 09:37, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/02/2014 12:09 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:13:31 +0100
Wookey woo...@wookware.org wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as
init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and
the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with
everything systemdish.
Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs
Sent by private mail.
Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker.
Sorry, Thomas, but I'm not quite sure what are the privacy implications of
making public the set of packages running on my system. (Probably none,
but I'd rather not find out
At Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:13:31 +0100,
Wookey wrote:
+++ Lars Wirzenius [2014-07-01 18:34 +0100]:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init
but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like
On Wed Jul 2 2014 07:26:52 PM HKT, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker.
Sorry, Thomas, but I'm not quite sure what are the privacy implications
of making public the set of packages running on my system. (Probably
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Wookey wrote:
I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name
(and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I
guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be
allowed.
Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour,
On 02/07/14 15:38, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Wookey wrote:
I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name
(and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I
guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be
allowed.
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 16:54 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 02/07/14 15:38, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Wookey wrote:
But then, I did not upload them, and I do not oppose a name change.
Also, add the Important: yes header (and, obviously, remove the
Origin/Bugs
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:39 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 16:54 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
And this one is
very important: systemd is default, not optional.
^^mandatory
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:39 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
these packages. And, there won't be 50 000
foo-must-die packages.
Packages are there to install software, not to prevent sucht
installation.
This is a perversion of any package management system.
What you want can be done via
On 02/07/14 20:39, Svante Signell wrote:
Independent of Thorstens answer I (and many with me) find it very
convenient to have these packages. And, there won't be 50 000
foo-must-die packages. There is no such controversy with other packages,
the ones I can think of might be prevent-gnome,
On 13624 March 1977, Svante Signell wrote:
Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank
you.
A package with this name wont ever appear in the archive, and I just
rejected it.
What about systemd-nogo or nogo-systemd, alternately just no-systemd?
*I* fail to see the
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I don't want XFCE on my system. I don't install xfce-must-die, I just look at
apt when I upgrade my system or install new packages.
You will never get xfce via an indirect 4-step dependency chain,
but systemd comes in due to being the first
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never
want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a
load of them.
Joertg, please be reasonable. You know exactely why there is a difference
between a conflict-package
2014-07-03 0:40 GMT+02:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never
want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a
load of them.
Joertg, please be reasonable. You
Hello everybody,
may I suggest the Blends framework to those who want metapackages that
influence what is installed by default on their system ?
Currently, one of the main limits of the Blends framework is that it works
mostly by installing metapackages after a default installation. But I would
Dear all,
A few days ago, after a routine upgrade from testing, the power button on
my laptop ceased functioning. I was busy at the time, so I lived with
having to remember to type sudo shutdown -h now for a few days; yesterday,
I finally took the time to debug the issue.
I started with strace
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:25:36PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Dear all,
A few days ago, after a routine upgrade from testing, the power button on
my laptop ceased functioning. I was busy at the time, so I lived with
having to remember to type sudo shutdown -h now for a few days;
1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt that
it
should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd? I guess
I could make a dummy package that conflicts with systemd, but I'm
sure there's a better way.
I think you can just put
Package: systemd
Pin:
❦ 1 juillet 2014 15:25 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr :
A few days ago, after a routine upgrade from testing, the power button on
my laptop ceased functioning. I was busy at the time, so I lived with
having to remember to type sudo shutdown -h now for a few days;
On Tue, July 1, 2014 15:25, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
2. Could some kind soul explain to the systemd maintainers that gentle
persuasion, while not always the most efficient way to take over the
world, is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract
than alternative
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
So I'm turning to this list for help:
1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt that it
should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd? I guess
I could make a dummy package that conflicts with systemd, but I'm
I made such a
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:26:53 +0400
vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt
that it
should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd? I guess
I could make a dummy package that conflicts with systemd, but
I'm sure
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side,
but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our
volunteers to spend more time on it.
This is not a question of spending time. An
+++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-07-01 14:45 +]:
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
So I'm turning to this list for help:
1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt that it
should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd? I guess
I could make a dummy package
gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian
Social Contract than [...] bullying?
May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated?
I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract.
Are we to expect a higher standard of behaviour
Am 01.07.2014 17:20, schrieb Thomas Weber:
Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is
done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the
future?
Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim.
The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the
On 01/07/14 17:20, Thomas Weber wrote:
Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is
done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the
future?
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users
Am 01.07.2014 17:35, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek:
I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract.
I may remind you about [1] then. If you feel like you need to rant or
vent, please do it someplace else or expect a terse answer like the one
you got.
[1]
* Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25:
I filed bug 753357
Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9?
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Michael Biebl made an argument from authority:
Am 01.07.2014 17:35, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek:
I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract.
I may remind you about [1] then. If you feel like you need to rant or
vent, please do it someplace else or expect a terse
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse
side,
but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our
volunteers to spend more time on it.
The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude.
Can we perhaps agree
On 01/07/14, 05:35pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian
Social Contract than [...] bullying?
May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated?
I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social
On Tue, July 1, 2014 17:35, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian
Social Contract than [...] bullying?
May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated?
I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 17:20, Thomas Weber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side,
but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our
volunteers to spend more time
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:03, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25:
I filed bug 753357
Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9?
I suggest to reassign this bug to acpi-support-base and stop this
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people
Am 01.07.2014 18:28, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:03, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25:
I filed bug 753357
Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9?
I suggest to reassign this bug to acpi-support-base and
The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude.
That's hardly the main problem with Michael's behaviour.
I reported an actual bug, including conclusions that I got from fourty
minutes of tracing the ACPI scripts. Michael closed it straight away,
without investigating the
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an annoying
Am 01.07.2014 18:53, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek:
Michael closed it straight away,
without investigating the issue.
Oh, I did. That's why I told you to install systemd-shim.
It would be great if you can dial down your accusations a little.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking
On 01/07/14 18:09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init
but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like
will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything
systemdish.
Wookey,
Please rename
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd
I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two
very different machines it means no audio for me.
On a NAS it means no
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an
2014-07-01 19:38 GMT+02:00 Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr:
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd
I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two very
different
On 2014-07-01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
Maybe desktops user don't care much about the init system as long as
they can boot to the desktop.
They care as long as everything works. And for everything works to
keep on happening, we need a effective migration to systemd,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:53:27PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude.
That's hardly the main problem with Michael's behaviour.
I stand by what I said yesterday, in a different thread, but the same
mailing list:
# When a project
Am 01.07.2014 19:38, schrieb Eric Valette:
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd
I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two
very different machines it means no
Miroslaw,
unless you offer to ack as a front desk for bugs in systemd, then
please go with your judgments elsewhere. Your judgmental
comments are neither helpful nor welcome here.
Thanks,
Ondrej
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:17, Mirosław Baran wrote:
Michael Biebl made an argument from authority:
Michael,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim.
The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is
installed.
The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any
bug filed against it.
please don't
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Michael,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim.
The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is
installed.
The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct,
❦ 1 juillet 2014 10:53 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org :
- hold systemd back at 204 until systemd-shim is updated
The way user sessions work is quite different between 204 and 208. I
would hope that Jessie will come with 208 for this reason. Holding
systemd until systemd-shim is
Michael closed it straight away, without investigating the issue.
Oh, I did. That's why I told you to install systemd-shim.
Now could you please reopen bug 753357, or at least allow me to do it?
-- Juliusz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 01/07/2014 19:59, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
These are valid points, and thank you for reporting bugs! However, as
unstable user, some breakage can be expected, and the point for
transitioning early in unstable is to make the transition as smooth as
possible when someone uprades Debian stable,
On 1 July 2014 19:15:32 IST, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
unless you offer to ack as a front desk for bugs in systemd, then
please go with your judgments elsewhere. Your judgmental
comments are neither helpful nor welcome here.
My comment was factual and polite, thank you very much.
Am 01.07.2014 20:21, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Michael,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim.
The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is
installed.
The behaviour of
Which bug report is that?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748651
I will try to add the requested debug log ASAP. Dunno where I got the
initial bogus trace command from. Probably not invented it.
--eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:08:35 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 01.07.2014 19:38, schrieb Eric Valette:
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by
systemd
I do not care being tainted by systemd when it
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 1 juillet 2014 10:53 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org :
- hold systemd back at 204 until systemd-shim is updated
The way user sessions work is quite different between 204 and 208. I
would hope that Jessie will come
Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek:
new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer
version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make
systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't
ready yet.
This issue has been known
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:37:55PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 01.07.2014 17:20, schrieb Thomas Weber:
Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is
done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the
future?
Install systemd-sysv
Am 01.07.2014 21:06, schrieb Eric Valette:
Which bug report is that?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748651
Ok, thanks for sharing.
As for the issue you encountered on your NAS using RAID10: Please do
file a bug report and we will follow up there
Michael
--
Why is it
Am 01.07.2014 21:33, schrieb Steve Langasek:
Ok, thanks for this clarification. I didn't realize this dependency had not
yet made it into testing.
FWIW, from reading the bug log, it was not clear to me that you were taking
responsibility for this bug and stating that it had been fixed in
Am 01.07.2014 21:34, schrieb Michael Biebl:
Indeed, I take the blame for my verbosity here.
Or non-verbosity, if you so wish.
I do have to add that the tone of the bug report didn't really inspire
me to write paragraphs of explanations.
You know, I'm also just a human.
--
Why is it that all
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:57:37PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 01.07.2014 20:21, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Michael,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim.
The libpam-systemd package in
On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
The question is which of these is a worse outcome for the jessie release. I
come down firmly on the side that breaking desktops on upgrade is a worse
outcome than being behind on the latest and greatest user session interface=
s.
We
Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs showing what pulled systemd
in on the system?
Sent by private mail. If anyone else wants a copy, please drop me a note.
-- Juliusz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
]] Michael Biebl
Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek:
new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer
version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make
systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't
ready yet.
On 13624 March 1977, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init
but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like
will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything
systemdish.
Please rename the systemd-must-die
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 07:47:36PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
The question is which of these is a worse outcome for the jessie release. I
come down firmly on the side that breaking desktops on upgrade is a worse
outcome than being
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:09 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 13624 March 1977, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init
but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like
will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts
On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
https://bugs.debian.org/src:systemd-shim
Show me a bug report, not FUD.
I'd rather point to the likely-faulty code.
it is likely in or around
src:kde-workspace/powerdevil/daemon/backends/upower/powerdevilupowerbackend.cpp
when
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
]] Michael Biebl
Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek:
new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer
version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make
systemd-shim support
Am 02.07.2014 00:09, schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
Just as a heads-up: We're planning on making 208 hit unstable once 204-9
is in testing, and then follow up with newer versions once we deem they
are ready.
Do you mean
+++ Lars Wirzenius [2014-07-01 18:34 +0100]:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init
but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like
will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever,
No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in an
unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops.
On desktops, upgrades of iceweasel and icedove
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
What about systemd-nogo or nogo-systemd, alternately just no-systemd?
I have a ‘no-mono’ package (not hosted anywhere; I welcome contact from
anyone who wants to upload it).
I would expect ‘prevent-…’ or ‘no-…’ as the name of such packages.
--
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes:
But I think that many sysadmins that are going to upgrade their servers
from wheezy to jessie care about this.
Indeed. I care very much about ensuring that systemd is installed on my
servers, as I think the benefits for servers are at least
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever,
No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in
an unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops.
On
93 matches
Mail list logo
