On 09/07/2014 12:24 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
However there is a wider problem here. The systemd of Fedora 14/15
is not the systemd of today.
I agree 100%
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago, that means you can forever more
On 12/09/14 01:08 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 09/07/2014 12:24 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
However there is a wider problem here. The systemd of Fedora 14/15
is not the systemd of today.
I agree 100%
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
You are wasting your time. Lennart and his bunch proved to be impervious
to any pleas to stop mad feature creep.
They WANT to extend systemd in every imaginable way to scratch their
favorite itch of the week. It's not
On Sex, 2014-09-12 at 19:08 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 09/07/2014 12:24 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
However there is a wider problem here. The systemd of Fedora 14/15
is not the systemd of today.
I agree 100%
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:36:21AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- has tools for setting the system time and timezone, and locale
Sure. They're useful.
In GNOME, our settings panels previously only worked on Fedora and
- Original Message -
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:36:21AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- has tools for setting the system time and timezone, and locale
Sure. They're useful.
In GNOME, our settings panels
and others integration like crontab should be modular
Systemd as cron is something that is built in. If you want a
replacement, just install it and don't use this. It's a relatively small
feature and it consumes just few kilobytes on your drive. It makes a lot
of sense to have this burnt in
Il 07/09/2014 20:04, Reindl Harald ha scritto:
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain about systemd-readahead - guess what - if a virtual
machine is detected it is skipped
And why is it a good idea to skip it on a virtual machine?
Paolo
--
devel
Am 09.09.2014 um 12:33 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Il 07/09/2014 20:04, Reindl Harald ha scritto:
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain about systemd-readahead - guess what - if a virtual
machine is detected it is skipped
And why is it a good idea to
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:37:45PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.09.2014 um 12:33 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Il 07/09/2014 20:04, Reindl Harald ha scritto:
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain about systemd-readahead - guess what - if a
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain about systemd-readahead - guess what - if a virtual
machine is detected it is skipped
And why is it a good idea to skip it on a virtual machine?
guess what happens if you fire up 20 guests at the same
Am 09.09.2014 um 13:51 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:37:45PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.09.2014 um 12:33 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Il 07/09/2014 20:04, Reindl Harald ha scritto:
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:01:09PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
on http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/199113
*you* complain about systemd-readahead - guess what - if a virtual
machine is detected it is skipped
And why is it a good idea to skip it on a virtual
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 08:43 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway, systemd now does the following which it didn't do in F15:
- has its own network configuration system
...which we don't use.
So why is the tool there?
Well, because it's part of upstream systemd? We ship
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:18:45PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 18:49 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 06:54:03PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because
I think FESCO underestimates the problem in that case. FESCO should
ask that these packages are separate (exist as different components)
and communicate with the rest of the system / systemd through fully
specified interfaces.
Linux improves because of a brutal Darwinian selection process where
Am 08.09.2014 um 09:43 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:18:45PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- detects virtualization (long story here, but a very bad idea to
encourage programs to do this)
I don't believe any Fedora units use this ability. It's there for people
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:26:44AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
so *what* is your problem by a unit knowing i must not run now
What open-vm-tools needs is a system feature known as the VMware
backdoor. This is provided by other hypervisors too (notably qemu).
If you look at Hyper-V, it provides
Am 08.09.2014 um 10:43 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:26:44AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
so *what* is your problem by a unit knowing i must not run now
What open-vm-tools needs is a system feature known as the VMware
backdoor. This is provided by other hypervisors
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- intercepts coredumps
not on Fedora, abrt does that.
It's on the roadmap. coredumpctl is really great, and it's wonderful
that the ABRT devs are working on this. I don't care too much about the
rest of systemd, but coredumpctl
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- has tools for setting the system time and timezone, and locale
Sure. They're useful.
In GNOME, our settings panels previously only worked on Fedora and
Debian, with some half-functional code for Arch and openSUSE, because
each
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:36:21AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
- has tools for setting the system time and timezone, and locale
Sure. They're useful.
In GNOME, our settings panels previously only worked on Fedora and
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:31:45AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:11:37 +0100,
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
On Sáb, 2014-09-06 at 22:36 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:31:45AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:11:37 +0100,
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
[1]
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 06:54:03PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago, that means you can forever more push
any old stuff you want
Am 07.09.2014 um 19:49 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 06:54:03PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago, that means you
On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 22:30 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
/tmp has nothing to do with systemd
The tmp-on-tmp misfeature is to do with systemd.
It's implemented as a systemd mount because...that's how we do mounts
now. That's
On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 22:36 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago, that means you can forever more push
any old stuff you want into Fedora, without going back and consulting
with the community and
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 18:49 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 06:54:03PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
/tmp has nothing to do with systemd
The tmp-on-tmp misfeature is to do with systemd.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:31:45AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:11:37 +0100,
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
On Sáb, 2014-09-06 at 22:36 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:31:45AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:11:37 +0100,
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
Hi
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We need to decide if just because you manage to get an important core
package into Fedora 4 years ago, that means you can forever more push
any old stuff you want into Fedora, without going back and consulting
with the community
HI
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
/tmp has nothing to do with systemd
The tmp-on-tmp misfeature is to do with systemd.
How? systemd works fine without it. Many distributions have switched to
On 09/04/2014 09:01 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:50:42PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 05:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Do we really need another systemd thread?
Yes, because Fedora has failed to discuss system and systemd development in
advance before they
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:52:42AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 09:01 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:50:42PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 05:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Do we really need another systemd thread?
Yes, because Fedora has failed
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:52:42AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Also I do not recall any lengthy discussions on systemd when it was
proposed. It was just one of these Feature-announcement pages hardly
anybody reads. I recall later discussions when systemd became feature
bloated and when
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ? and others integration like crontab
should be modular, for someone else could use his own crontab .
OTOH , the support
On 04/09/14 11:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ? and others integration like crontab
should be modular, for someone else
*sigh*
Could we stop ranting every time, we speak about systemd ? Not only,
it's tiresome but it does *not* help to fix the aforementioned issues.
systemd and its upstream are not perfect, but systemd gains vs loss
are by far positive.
About systemd-network, there are perfectly valid arguments to
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:11:37 +0100,
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ? and others integration like crontab
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:14:59 -0400
Digimer li...@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 04/09/14 11:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the
group have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why
On 09/04/2014 05:11 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
OTOH , the support of systemd is not good, we got bug opened and they
are ignored as nothing happens, as for example bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088619
The bug is unresolved so far, but it is not ignored.
At least there is a
On 09/04/2014 05:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Do we really need another systemd thread?
Yes, because Fedora has failed to discuss system and systemd development
in advance before they had been deployed. Instead Fedora was confronted
with completed facts.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
On 04/09/14 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 05:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Do we really need another systemd thread?
Yes, because Fedora has failed to discuss system and systemd development
in advance before they had been deployed. Instead Fedora was confronted
with completed
On Thu, 04.09.14 16:11, Sérgio Basto (ser...@serjux.com) wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ?
It's a set of tools to build an OS from, not
Am 04.09.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ? and others integration like crontab
should be modular, for someone else
I have to admit, I love the claim that systemd is anti-Unix. Isn't the
fact that systemd makes use of systems that exist already, like DBus and
udev, following the Unix philosophy of letting programs worry about their
own problem space? The fact is, any system that is required to do system
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:50:42PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 05:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Do we really need another systemd thread?
Yes, because Fedora has failed to discuss system and systemd development in
advance before they had been deployed. Instead Fedora was
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Digimer li...@alteeve.ca wrote:
This reminds me of the Beefy Miracle fiasco... Everyone complained after
it happened, but few said or did anything before then.
The scope of systemd has crept dramatically since the start. If the
initial discussions of systemd said
On September 4, 2014 at 3:19:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell
(gmaxw...@gmail.com(mailto:gmaxw...@gmail.com)) wrote:
It should be perfectly acceptable to tell people Fedora is not for you.”
I agree with this - although I suspect most of the long time Fedora users feel
a sense of loyalty and would
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com said:
The scope of systemd has crept dramatically since the start. If the
initial discussions of systemd said it would merge dhcp, udev, and
that it would push binary logging, etc. Do you really think it would
have gone without more
On 09/04/2014 07:13 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 04.09.14 16:11, Sérgio Basto (ser...@serjux.com) wrote:
Hi,
[1]
since Fedora have some responsibility, unfortunately I think the group
have some valid reasons , systemd should be the replacement of
sysvinit , a built in DHCP !? why ?
On Thu, 04.09.14 12:19, Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Digimer li...@alteeve.ca wrote:
This reminds me of the Beefy Miracle fiasco... Everyone complained after
it happened, but few said or did anything before then.
The scope of systemd has
54 matches
Mail list logo
