Le mardi 24 août 2010 à 16:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
PACKAGING
- Guidelines for packaging systemd units shall be formalized.
As pointed out elsewhere, I'd avoid this for F14.
Then we should put don't in the guidelines,
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
I think that's precisely the concern. In the event that F14 goes back
to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
received much testing.
Don't Do That Then. :-) It's just another
seth vidal wrote:
It always worked for me - and it saved my arse a number of times when a
service starting up would go haywire and hang the system.
Same here, I have used interactive boot more than once to fix a non-booting
system.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
Adam Williamson wrote:
for clarity - no, there's nothing magic about five releases ago. Five
was a Random Rhetorical Number. :) I don't know the last time we had a
major init system change, whenever it was, I wasn't around.
You actually guessed the correct number. Upstart was introduced in
Matt McCutchen wrote:
I think that's precisely the concern. In the event that F14 goes back
to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
received much testing.
Don't Do That Then. :-) It's just another reason to stick with systemd.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Lennart Poettering wrote:
You can actually use systemd.confirm_spawn=yes on the kernel
cmdline. This should work fine for an interactive boot and things are
synchronized via tty ownership. However, I am not sure how useful this
all is, given that we starte gdm pretty early (which then owns the
Lennart Poettering wrote:
But you enable them to block out change. For example, if somebody
refuses to merge a patch that adds a systemd equivalent for an upstart
config hook he has,
… then a provenpackager should just commit the change.
We should trust maintainers in most cases, but if
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Lennart Poettering (…) said:
[snip]
We want prefdm to start as early as possible.
That is a separate discussion that should be had once we have the basic
functionality verified and working, IMO. If we want to reorganize around
early login, we should do that as a
On 08/24/2010 05:06 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
GENERAL SANITY
- Booting a system shall achieve a similar result as booting in upstart:
-- The same set of services will be started.
-- The services shall function the same.
-- The same set of devices and filesystems shall be mounted.
-- The
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:58:26PM +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
It should also mount nothing else unless it is absolutely necessary for
systemd! Currently systemd mounts all control groups controllers
(/cgroup/cpu, /cgroup/cpuset, /cgroup/cpuacct, ...), which breaks libcgroup.
bug number?
--
On 08/25/2010 01:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:58:26PM +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
It should also mount nothing else unless it is absolutely necessary for
systemd! Currently systemd mounts all control groups controllers
(/cgroup/cpu, /cgroup/cpuset, /cgroup/cpuacct,
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:05:01PM +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
bug number?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626794
thanks.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences
--
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I'm going to be blunt. I DON'T CARE.
Yay, thanks that you don't care. You are aware that by putting
everything on a single man's shoulders and then telling him you don't
care you make him feel really welcome and make him wonder
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I'm going to be blunt. I DON'T CARE.
Yay, thanks that you don't care. You are aware that by putting
everything on a single man's shoulders and then telling
On Wed, 25.08.10 03:03, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
If the libraries or binaries used by systemd are replaced during
runtime,
and it is not re-executed on shutdown, the filesystem will have busy
inodes
on shutdown. (If you'd like to take the filesystem
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:08:49PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 25.08.10 03:03, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
The traditional solution is to reexec not on shutdown, but immediately
after init upgrade (which also frees the inodes early); this can still
race with shutdown
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 15:35 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Indeed, imo we should add them to the release criteria.
It's a rather indigestible lump, for the criteria. James and I were
thinking about a 'module' system for the release criteria so it can link
out to other pages, but I'm wondering when a
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
backwards compatibility. THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY VERBOSE. Comments, changes,
etc. welcome.
We need something in here about cgroups. Doing something useful by default
with cgroups is one of the big selling points for systemd. We
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
This is a very big change. chkconfig has worked for a long, long time. Its
elegance and simplicity is one of the nice administrative features of Red
Hat based distributes. People like it.
Yes, and they should continue to use it -- for sysv
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
Hmm, so this is about files that are deleted but still mapped by init,
and which can only be deleted when init stops referencing them, but that
is required to remount the fs r/o? Did I get this right?
Correct.
I am not really convinced that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 03:27:54PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
chkconfig is different, because it's not a 1:1 mapping, and there are
different semantics involved. I'd like to have it working so that the
automated uses in scripts/frameworks work (checking whether a service is
enabled, for
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 15:35 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Indeed, imo we should add them to the release criteria.
It's a rather indigestible lump, for the criteria. James and I were
thinking about a 'module' system for the
On 08/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
(intentionally breaking thread)
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Maybe I should start a new thread since this isn't really a bug, but it is
a blocker -- we need to get some packaging guidelines out for systemd.
I think that the last
2010/8/24 Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
SERVICE HANDLING
- Running 'chkconfig foo (null)|on|off' on a service managed by systemd
will return the correct code/perform an appropriate action.
Also, if chkconfig --add
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hey Bill,
this is a very good initial list, this should make it very easy for QA
to whip up a test plan for systemd. Some comments below.
BOOTUP
- System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
- System boots successfully to text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2010 08:45 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hey Bill,
this is a very good initial list, this should make it very easy for QA
to whip up a test plan for systemd. Some comments below.
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 08:45 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
BOOTUP
- System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
- System boots successfully to text mode, when configured.
- System properly handles being passed [1-5],
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:00 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 08:45 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
BOOTUP
- System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
- System boots successfully to text mode, when
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:00:55AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
I can't remember interactive boot ever working.
It does in RHEL 5. It will need to be working for RHEL 7.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services
Harvard School of
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:18:27AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
File /etc/inittab should keep working at the same level it is now.
Now it only selects default runlevel.
How about:
- If /etc/inittab exists and contains an initdefault line, the default
target will be set accordingly.
- any
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:33AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
GENERAL SANITY
- Booting a system shall achieve a similar result as booting in upstart:
-- The same set of services will be started.
I don't think this is a requirement on systemd, really. If we make
changes to the default
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
RUNTIME TOOLS
- telinit [0123456] does the proper thing.
It currently doesn't, by the way. But there's been upstream fixes which
aren't yet in rawhide, so I'll retest when that's available.
- the 'runlevel' command displays
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
SERVICE HANDLING
- Running 'chkconfig foo (null)|on|off' on a service managed by systemd
will return the correct code/perform an appropriate action.
- Running 'service foo start|stop|...' on a service managed by systemd
will
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 11:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:33AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
GENERAL SANITY
- Booting a system shall achieve a similar result as booting in upstart:
-- The same set of services will be started.
I don't think this is a
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 11:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:33AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
GENERAL SANITY
- Booting a system shall achieve a similar result as booting in upstart:
-- The same set of services
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
How about:
- If /etc/inittab exists and contains an initdefault line, the default
target will be set accordingly.
- any other non-comment, non-blank lines in /etc/inittab will be logged as
warnings.
This leaves a migration path (ditch the
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread, there
are many things that I think people would like covered with systemd before
they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to attempt to quantify
what would
seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
You mean 'being passed on the kernel cmdline', I assume ?
Do we consider interactive boot essential (I think not) ?
Should mention something about forced fsck, maybe.
What about selinux relabeling ?
I can't remember interactive boot
On 08/24/2010 04:18 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:33:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
BOOTUP
- System properly handles being passed [1-5], 'single', 'S', 's', '-s',
booting to the appropriate 'runlevel' (0 and 6 can still work,
but they're sort of pointless anyway)
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:23 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:11:58AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we're still including upstart as a fallback option, I think it's
The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
keeping it around during
On Mon, 23.08.10 23:06, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
(intentionally breaking thread)
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Maybe I should start a new thread since this isn't really a bug, but it is
a blocker -- we need to get some packaging guidelines out for systemd.
On Tue, 24.08.10 09:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
I would add security things.
Starting a service sends audit messages from the proper loginuid.
I am sure Steve Grub has lots of concerns here also.
This is not fair!
Upstart never did this. We do this now in systemd, as the
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
You mean 'being passed on the kernel cmdline', I assume ?
Do we consider interactive boot essential (I think not) ?
Should mention something about forced fsck, maybe.
What about
On Tue, 24.08.10 13:28, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
BOOTUP
- System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
- System boots successfully to text mode, when configured.
- System properly handles being passed [1-5],
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
keeping it around during pre-release, so that if we decide we need to
fall back to upstart for final release, it's easy to do. As far as I
know, the plan is to decide later
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:46 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
You mean 'being passed on the kernel cmdline', I assume ?
Do we consider interactive boot essential (I think not) ?
Should
seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'll test it in rhel6 in just a sec.
Doesn't work in rhel6 :(
If you hold down the key long enough at the right time, it sort of works.
That's not really how we want to have it going forward, for obvious reasons.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What would make sense to add to chkconfig is something that checks
whether a systemd unit is installed and then prints Hey, you have a
systemd unit installed, chkconfig won't do what you think it will do for
this unit or so.
On Tue, 24.08.10 12:14, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 11:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:45:33AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
GENERAL SANITY
- Booting a system shall
On Tue, 24.08.10 11:47, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
From a practical point of view, I think what's actually important is:
-- if you're in single user mode → it says 'S'
It actually returns 1 in this case.
-- if you're in non-GUI multiuser → it says '3'
-- if you're in
On Tue, 24.08.10 15:55, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What would make sense to add to chkconfig is something that checks
whether a systemd unit is installed and then prints Hey, you have a
systemd unit
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:20:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
As stated in the bug, this would lead to a situation where you could
have both a initdefault line, and a default.target symlnk, that select
different things. How would you arbitrate?
Well, also as stated in the bug :), always
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:14, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:20:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
As stated in the bug, this would lead to a situation where you could
have both a initdefault line, and a default.target symlnk, that select
different things.
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
On Tue, 24.08.10 15:55, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
This is a very big change. chkconfig has worked for a long, long time. Its
elegance and simplicity is one of the nice administrative features of Red
Hat based
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 14:15, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:14, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:20:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
As stated in the bug, this would lead to a situation where you could
have both a
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:15:43PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, also as stated in the bug :), always follow the /etc/inittab first. If
if it makes sense, perhaps systemd should change the default.target to
match.
Maybe we should check AUTOEXEC.BAT first, too?
Cute.
The answer
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
On Tue, 24.08.10 15:55, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
This is a very big change. chkconfig has worked for a long, long time. Its
elegance and simplicity is one
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
keeping it around during pre-release, so that if we decide we need to
fall back to upstart for final
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
keeping it around during
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
- init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty
inodes on shutdown; initscripts will use this method on shutdown.
This is bad. While we support this just fine I think it is a really bad
idea to reexec init at
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
From a practical point of view, I think what's actually important is:
-- if you're in single user mode → it says 'S'
It actually returns 1 in this case.
What do you mean by actually? If you try it, you will see that both
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:32 +0200, drago01 wrote:
[...] In the event that F14 goes back
to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
received much testing. If we want to claim that it's safe to switch
back to upstart after beta, we need to be testing that
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread,
there are many things that I think people would like covered with
systemd before they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to
attempt to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/24/10 1:46 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:32 +0200, drago01 wrote:
[...] In the event that F14 goes back
to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
received much testing. If we want to claim
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
- init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty
inodes on shutdown; initscripts will use this method on shutdown.
This is bad. While we
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:54, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
While I think this is a good idea I am concernced a bit that this makes
me responsible for stuff I am not willing to take responsibility
of. i.e. if something from this list is broken, but it isn't systemd's
fault then this
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:32:32PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
This isn't personal. It's a list of requirements that indicate where we need
to be in order to ship systemd as the default in Fedora 14. It doesn't
matter whose fault it is -- if it doesn't work, we can't ship it
broken.
On Tue, 24.08.10 20:14, Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
- init shall support a mechanism to
Lennart Poettering píše v St 25. 08. 2010 v 02:52 +0200:
On Tue, 24.08.10 20:14, Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Lennart Poettering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2010 03:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 09:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
I would add security things.
Starting a service sends audit messages from the proper loginuid.
I am sure Steve Grub has lots of
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:29 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
keeping it around during pre-release, so that if
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 21:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think that's precisely the concern. In the event that F14 goes back
to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
received much testing. If we want to claim that it's safe to switch
back to upstart
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread, there
are many things that I think people would like covered with systemd before
they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to attempt to quantify
what
73 matches
Mail list logo
