On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
whether one is willing to release
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL
- vs. the GPL. But while some
Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)):
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
On Dec 04, 2012, at 06:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
Not to diminish your own concerns, but it doesn't bother me.
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
(was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)):
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:42:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
(was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)):
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg
On Dec 01, 2012, at 07:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their
CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the
code, but you retain your own copyrights.
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
with embedded
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
Not really, IMO.
Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
the very same reason
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
making use of a separate /usr is still possible, even if you think it's
totally
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:51:47PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=PC68KCF
the most recent processor you can find there was released in January
2012.
Le samedi 01 décembre 2012 à 09:52 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
making use of
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
Not really, IMO.
Personally, I'm not
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
the discussion that systemd is a bad design because it uses the same
configuration file syntax as Windows ini files or XDG .desktop files,
adding the statement that these are too difficult to parse.
If you are refering
]] Barry Warsaw
On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves
a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software,
should it?
In an ideal world maybe it shouldn't, but
Again, I am constantly asking here what these reasons might be and yet
people always come with strawman arguments.
You should bother to read the answers to your question then :-)
I am using systemd on my laptop, i have a very default system configuration,
(except that i compile my own
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:19:22PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693522
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694048
I can't say anything about the fetchmail problem, but I just tried to
reproduce the problem you explained in #693522
I can't say anything about the fetchmail problem, but I just tried to
reproduce the problem you explained in #693522 and it works on my
installation.
So we will probably need more input to debug this.
Please post on the bug what kind of test you want me to do.
I was just pointing out how
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:19:22PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
I am using systemd on my laptop, i have a very default system configuration,
(except that i compile my own kernel to avoid initrd)…
^^
…if I, with a normal, standard desktop
On Nov 30, 2012, at 09:14 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is
somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners
in mind.
In the abstract, the non-profit or for-profit status of an organization is
little
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:12:14PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Harald,
Hi Adrian
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote:
I have tried systemd but as it does not support the Debian extensions to
cryptsetup (namely the crypttab keyscript parameter) it
* Jon Dowland j...@debian.org [121130 16:06]:
I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a normal
standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
setup which I would argue are not standard (see below)
Will Debian come by default with
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jon Dowland j...@debian.org [121130 16:06]:
I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
normal
standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
setup which I would
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jon Dowland j...@debian.org [121130 16:06]:
I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
normal
standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
setup which I would
I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
normal standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things
about your setup which I would argue are not standard (see below)
Well no but are you trying to argue that my problems are due to my kernel
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:03:21PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:52:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 01:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart?
Well, isn't it the opposite
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:49:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Now, I may add, I have no will to discuss it with you
anyway, after reading you impose on my your
partitioning scheme, and would like me to use my
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:02:20PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:12:23AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
P.S: By the way, there's still an ongoing m68k porting effort. Please
respect
this work as well.
I've been a vivid Amiga user since 1991* and I still
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
daemons interact very closely and integration of the sources was the
natural consequence.
udev and pulseaudio are developed by the same developers. Both
+++ John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2012-11-24 18:30 +0100]:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:02PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
and accept systemd,
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
making use of a separate /usr is still possible, even if you think it's
totally useless, are you going to stop them.
Wouter, I think higher of you than
Dear Adrian
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Again, I am constantly asking here what these reasons might be and yet
people always come with strawman arguments. I mean, seriously we had
the discussion that systemd is a bad design because it uses the
On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
There are valid arguments for forking udev, but /usr support is not one
of them; we will just move /usr mounting to the initrd if it cannot be
mounted later.
On the Debian side of things, you are probably right, since using an
initrd is ok in
Hi Harald,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote:
I have tried systemd but as it does not support the Debian extensions to
cryptsetup (namely the crypttab keyscript parameter) it is not a
valuable alternative for me - sysvinit and upstart btw do support them,
I did not
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:55:13AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, you are running Gentoo and rebuild your kernel, why would
you bother with such thing as kernel modules and initrd? The thing is,
many (most? all?) Gentoo user, as far as I understand (I'm not a
Gentoo user), do not use
2012/11/29 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org:
glibc and the kernel is developed by the same group of companies. Both
interact very closely and integration of the sources was the natural
consequence.
Please, *DONT* :-)
I've tired of this crap on illumos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves
a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software,
should it?
In an ideal world maybe it shouldn't, but in truth it is for both
On 11/30/2012 01:18 AM, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:55:13AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, you are running Gentoo and rebuild your kernel, why would
you bother with such thing as kernel modules and initrd? The thing is,
many (most? all?) Gentoo user, as far as I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=PC68KCF
the most recent processor you can find there was released in January
2012.
Yeah, someone else posted this information already.
How much are these instruction
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 03:40:47AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We can ignore what happens to other downstreams of udev,
however I don't think that's a good idea to do so.
Why bother other downstreams if they don't complain? I find it rather
intrusive to post on the lists of other downstreams,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
daemons interact very closely and integration of the sources was the
natural
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:51:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
daemons interact
On 11/28/2012 02:38 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
There is nothing in systemd's or udev's architecture that requires
having /usr mounted early.
That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr.
However, it's the opinion of the systemd
primary upstream authors that having /usr
On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
However, it's the opinion of the systemd
primary upstream authors that having /usr on a separate fs is a bad idea
since there are tools that (primarily) some udev rules use, which live
on /usr.
Yeah, we all so his marvelous
On 11/28/2012 07:17 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
However, it's the opinion of the systemd
primary upstream authors that having /usr on a separate fs is a bad idea
since there are tools that (primarily) some udev rules
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up
everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly :
it's not only about Lennart and systemd guys, and I should take the
blame for not
On 11/28/2012 11:55 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up
everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly :
it's not only about Lennart and systemd guys,
I had a half-drafted message to the same effect, but deleted it
earlier. Thanks Neil for speaking up. I have to say Thomas, many
recent messages from you across many threads, mostly on -devel
but also elsewhere, have seemed to have very little in the way
of polite, constructive content, advancing
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps
to waiting while things are building ... :)
I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely
that there will be any outcome), but I also find it fun.
I'm
On 11/29/2012 01:33 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps
to waiting while things are building ... :)
I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely
that there will be
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 03:42:19PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The point is, systemd and udev have recently been patched by upstream so
that things are going *even more* on the direction of having stuff
stored in /usr.
Which is still not really a problem when tons of other
]] Steve Langasek
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 03:42:19PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The point is, systemd and udev have recently been patched by upstream so
that things are going *even more* on the direction of having stuff
stored in /usr.
Which is still not really a
Hi,
First, I'm registered to the list. So please *do not* Cc: me.
On 11/25/2012 03:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
They're constantly claiming, for example, that
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:16:27PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Yes, lots of
udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact. Yes, lots of
things are annoying in the merge for someone who wishes to use
udev alone, and not systemd. That is a fact as well.
There is tons of stuff that
On 11/25/2012 01:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart?
Well, isn't it the opposite thing that is happening? Such low-level
stuff are being merged (with systemd+udev merge), they were
separated projects before.
So, I'd rather ask you:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:52:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 01:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart?
Well, isn't it the opposite thing that is happening? Such low-level
stuff are being merged (with systemd+udev
On 11/25/2012 02:19 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I really wish people would stop having this debate.
It is completely pointless for us to argue here over whether or not the
fork will be successful. The outcome of that argument is completely
irrelevant to the world: even if we all decide that the
On 11/25/2012 10:42 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Besides, can you elaborate what is so important in having /usr
separate? I see that it made sense back on the old Unix workstations
where you could split partitions across different disks, but I don't
see the point nowadays where a cheap
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 02:19 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I really wish people would stop having this debate.
It is completely pointless for us to argue here over whether or not the
fork will be successful. The outcome of that argument is completely
irrelevant to
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
So please just keep in mind that this is annoying
some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just
live with the fact you aren't alone in this world, and
that some of us prefer a separated /usr partition.
Based on which
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:49:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
So please just keep in mind that this is annoying
some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just
live with the fact you aren't alone in this world,
On 11/26/2012 01:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Debian dropped support for m68k and Alpha and
deprived users of their freedom to run Debian on these platforms with
the latest supported software. But these architectures weren't dropped
because they wanted to take away people's freedoms
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:12:23AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
P.S: By the way, there's still an ongoing m68k porting effort. Please
respect
this work as well.
I've been a vivid Amiga user since 1991* and I still love these
machines and I am supporting the efforts to get Debian back onto
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:06:02PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
some of us prefer a separated /usr partition.
I want to have a separate /usr, because I can
enabling a separate /usr means extra work.
using a separate /usr was controversial
partitioned their systems with a separate /usr
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:09:51AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/14/2012 11:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The full thread is here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
systemd / upstart /
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't about
I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
help
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
without systemd or not.
I would highly prefer a system where I can take small
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:02PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
without systemd
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
help getting back some of the modularity in Linux that was there, once
upon a time, and which
Adrian wrote:
If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
without systemd or not.
Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
Lennart already.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 à 18:25 +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
Lennart already.
OTOH we also get quite enough of FUD from people who don’t know what
systemd is but don’t want us to use it.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
I believe you've been reading too much L. Poettring. Yes, lots of
udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
I believe you've been reading too much L.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:35:22AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Sorry, but I wouldn't touch code with a ten-feet pole who from someone
is so naive claiming that he knows more about writing an open source
BIOS than the people at Coreboot who have been doing that since
1999. I started
On 11/14/2012 11:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
I think this is an interesting read:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
The full thread is here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesting about
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again
the systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't
about the init system, and it wasn't my intention to restart this
debate.
However, how should Debian see this
75 matches
Mail list logo
