On 25/09/14 03:43, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
>> to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
>> never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
>
> This is the
On 09/24/2014 02:45 PM, Brian wrote:
Chanting "Red Hat Conspirancy" to yourself before falling into a deep
slumber is one thing. Convincing most other people it exists is a task
which requires a little bit more.
Let's see, the real goal of systemd has nothing to do with init or
service mana
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:07:08PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 12:58:26 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > === Depending on glibc ===
> > True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
> > agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
>
> Misinformati
On 09/24/2014 01:43 PM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
This is the Red Hat
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 14:01:04 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:16:26 +0400
> Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their
> > > compiler to reduce the utility of Li
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:16:26 +0400
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their
> > compiler to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so
> > years ago. They never have.
>
> Or did
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
> to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
> never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
This is the Red Hat Conspiracy Theory. Does the promoti
Hi.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
> to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
> never have.
Or did they?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.htm
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:30:22 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
> > agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
>
> I nearly choked on my coffee reading t
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:30:22AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>> > True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
>> > agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agend
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:30:22AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
> > agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
>
> I nearly choked on my coffee read
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
> agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
I nearly choked on my coffee reading that. Redhat built their business on
Linux; GNU have been hostile toward
On 09/23/2014 12:11 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
and the replacement did not fix it. A modular system has to support
al
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 21:09:30 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 23/09/2014 20:46, Brian a écrit :
> > You do not like that systemd will be the default init system for Jessie.
> > Tough. Exercise your choice not to have it. Or is easier to moan rather
> > than just get on with using sysvinit?
> >
> >
Le 23/09/2014 20:46, Brian a écrit :
> On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 19:30:34 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
>
>> Compare it to to a init system which is the main reason to choose a
>> desktop environment...
>>
>> See
>> http://www.webupd8.org/2014/09/debian-switches-back-to-gnome-from-xfce.html
>>
>>
>> So syt
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 19:30:34 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> Compare it to to a init system which is the main reason to choose a
> desktop environment...
>
> See
> http://www.webupd8.org/2014/09/debian-switches-back-to-gnome-from-xfce.html
>
>
> So sytemd does in fact orient *everything*. You are
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 13:40:02 -0400, Mike McGinn wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:54:44 Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > I just had a look and didn't realise how closely Debian is reliant on the
> > C language! Surely, this can't be good!
>
> The entire kernel is written in C. A lang
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 12:58:26 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> Let's discuss your analogies...
>
> === Depending on glibc ===
> True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
> agenda is less harmful to Linux than the
On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:54:44 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:11:03PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
> > > 1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
> > > it. Being tied to one init system is what ca
Le 23/09/2014 18:58, Steve Litt a écrit :
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
>>> 1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
>>> it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
>>> a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
> >
> > 1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
> > it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
> > and the replacement did not fix it. A modula
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:11:03PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
> >
> > 1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
> > it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
> > and the replacement did not fix it. A m
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
>
> 1) The goal is "modular Debian." Multi-init is the means to achieve
> it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
> and the replacement did not fix it. A modular system has to support
> all init systems, including systemd, clones
On 09/22/2014 05:07 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Hi Rob,
I saw the bug closed (via mail on -devel) and personally thought it shouldn't
have been. However when considering next steps my advice would be to leave bugs
alone for a short while and let things cool off.
It's important and useful to fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/22/2014 at 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
>
>> Martin Read writes:
>>
>>> consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces
>>> (and systemd-logind was the reason the mai
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:12:52PM CEST, Marty said:
> On 09/22/2014 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> >
> >
> >Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
> >>Martin Read writes:
> >>>consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
> >>>systemd-logind was the reas
On 09/22/2014 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
maintaining it).
So who is going
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
maintaining it).
So who is going to step forward and start maintaining it?
Nobody needs to. sy
Hi Rob,
I saw the bug closed (via mail on -devel) and personally thought it shouldn't
have been. However when considering next steps my advice would be to leave bugs
alone for a short while and let things cool off.
It's important and useful to file bugs, but that in and of itself doesn't solve
pr
Martin Read writes:
> consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
> systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
> maintaining it).
So who is going to step forward and start maintaining it?
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UN
On 21/09/14 23:47, The Wanderer wrote:
I did mean policykit, but that's because I was talking about my
understanding, which does have policykit in that slot. My understanding
may well be wrong, and if so, consolekit may very well be what *should*
go in that slot instead.
consolekit is indeed th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 06:05 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 14:40:13 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>>>
>>> What did those packages do for that functionality before
>>> systemd existed?
>>
>> Acc
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 14:40:13 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > What did those packages do for that functionality before systemd
> > existed?
>
> According to my understanding, either they depended on policykit (which
> used to provide such, or
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 18:08:58 +0100, Martin Read wrote:
> As far as the Debian-related aspects of the matter are concerned, it
> seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to file bugs against
> sysvinit-core and upstart suggesting that they should have a
> Recommends: reference to systemd-shi
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 10:48:51 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> Looking for advice from people in the know...
>
> I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing your
> init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
> Debian's goals of supporting multiple init syste
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> Filing bugs about that against the packages which depend on that
>> functionality, as advised in the mail closing the bug which this
>> thread is about, is not productive;
The Wanderer writes:
> Filing bugs about that against the packages which depend on that
> functionality, as advised in the mail closing the bug which this
> thread is about, is not productive; they don't control what provides
> the functionality they need.
What did those packages do for that funct
On 21/09/14 15:48, Rob Owens wrote:
The bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762116
I think I agree with John Hasler in:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/09/msg01430.html
that much of this is a matter of Debian package dependencies reflecting
dependencies of the up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 12:12 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Rob Owens writes:
>
>> I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require
>> changing your init system to systemd. I pointed out that this
>> runs counter to Debian's goals of supporting mul
Rob Owens writes:
> I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing
> your init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
> Debian's goals of supporting multiple init systems.
No, it doesn't. Any individual package can depend on any other package.
Unfortunate
Looking for advice from people in the know...
I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing your
init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
Debian's goals of supporting multiple init systems. The bug was closed
without fixing in a matter of hours.
Perh
41 matches
Mail list logo
