Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com writes: If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! Suspend to disk is dead slow even with an SSD. That really is no alternative. Suspend to RAM is nice when it works which is about 4 times out of 5 on this laptop. (A great improvement over a few years ago, by the way). /Benny -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/23/2011 03:29 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote: Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com writes: If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! Suspend to disk is dead slow even with an SSD. That really is no alternative. Suspend to RAM is nice when it works which is about 4 times out of 5 on this laptop. (A great improvement over a few years ago, by the way). /Benny Suspend to disk on my 2gb 5 year old laptop takes about 15 seconds. I don't think that is slow. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 23.06.2011 14:10, schrieb Steve Clark: On 06/23/2011 03:29 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote: Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com writes: If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! Suspend to disk is dead slow even with an SSD. That really is no alternative. Suspend to RAM is nice when it works which is about 4 times out of 5 on this laptop. (A great improvement over a few years ago, by the way). /Benny Suspend to disk on my 2gb 5 year old laptop takes about 15 seconds. I don't think that is slow and you think while booting the system needs to read 2 GB from disk as after suspend? try this with moden hardware with 8 or 16 GB RAM:-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/23/2011 08:49 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.06.2011 14:10, schrieb Steve Clark: On 06/23/2011 03:29 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote: Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com writes: If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! Suspend to disk is dead slow even with an SSD. That really is no alternative. Suspend to RAM is nice when it works which is about 4 times out of 5 on this laptop. (A great improvement over a few years ago, by the way). /Benny Suspend to disk on my 2gb 5 year old laptop takes about 15 seconds. I don't think that is slow and you think while booting the system needs to read 2 GB from disk as after suspend? try this with moden hardware with 8 or 16 GB RAM:-) Hi Reindl, I don't think you understand me. I think that justification for using systemd because it lead to faster boot ups is not a valid justification. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/17/2011 11:30 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: The actual Linus rule is that if it breaks user stuff it must be fixed now or it will be reverted. Which is not impossible If we know about the bugs we can fix them. This bug was only reported after the release. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 17.06.2011 08:31, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 06/17/2011 11:30 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: The actual Linus rule is that if it breaks user stuff it must be fixed now or it will be reverted. Which is not impossible If we know about the bugs we can fix them. This bug was only reported after the release. a needed TWO WEEKS to go in updates-testing, this is way roo long for such a major bug preventing the user from booting the system and it takes time until it is for normal users in stable repos too! why this is a bug in util-linux i do not undertsand because mount /mnt/storage/ works - in the fstab is /jmnt/storage/ so why in the world is systemd calling mount without the trailing slash? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/17/2011 02:13 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: a needed TWO WEEKS to go in updates-testing, this is way roo long for such a major bug preventing the user from booting the system and it takes time until it is for normal users in stable repos too! It is not a major bug since it is not common for people to put a trailing slash in the mount points. It was so uncommon that nobody even hit it until the release and unless a mount point is specifically marked as optional, it is expected behaviour that the system would stop booting on a failed mount and it is not mandatory for any update to stay in updates-testing for two weeks. If three testers to give positive feedback, then it can be pushed to stable immediately. Rahul Ps: As many people have already told you in the same thread, caps = shouting online and it is rude to do that. I request you to stop doing that -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:14:27 -0400 Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. Strictly speaking, it parses the slash correctly and it's a bug in /bin/mount. But I understand that's hardly a consolation for those who are affected by this bug. Right, if it was working before and stopped working now, pointing fingers at this point will not help the situation. Such a trivial scenario could have been tested and fixed by the author of the code before it was released to public. I hope this will stay as worst bug in systemd (or triggered by systemd, however you want to put it). Well you can't expect him to test every possible scenario (no matter how trivial it is). I never saw an fstab with a trailing slash so I wouldn't have though about testing it either. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
2011/6/13 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at: Reindl Harald wrote: and even on a new setup this should be a decision of the user at the very beginning what init-system he wants to us No, the choice of this kind of core under-the-hood system components should be a decision of the distribution. To the user, it should be only an implementation detail. To the software on the distribution, it should matter that they can rely on the core system components being what they are and not have a user replace something as central as the init system. I think it makes no sense whatsoever to even OFFER upstart in F15+ as we are doing. I don't see any valid reason why you'd use it over systemd. From experience... i prefer having two tools available atleast to do every single job (especially when they exist) because then i have an easy fallback if one fails. Having upstart installed on rawhide during the f15 rawhide cycles was quite helpful to work around boot bugs on the fly without having to debug stuff or ending up with a nonbooting system (which makes it hard to dig up ml threads with workarounds, or up or downgrading packages). As long as someone maintains it i see no reason to exclude upstart completly from the repos. kind regards, Rudolf Kastl rhce rhca rhcss rhcx rhci Red Hat Inc. You complain about some bugs in systemd, those should be reported as bugs and fixed. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/14/2011 03:15 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: From experience... i prefer having two tools available atleast to do every single job (especially when they exist) because then i have an easy fallback if one fails. Having upstart installed on rawhide during the f15 rawhide cycles was quite helpful to work around boot bugs on the fly without having to debug stuff or ending up with a nonbooting system (which makes it hard to dig up ml threads with workarounds, or up or downgrading packages). As long as someone maintains it i see no reason to exclude upstart completly from the repos. What do you about glibc bugs? Do you want to get them fixed or include alternatives? Having alternatives for each of the core components is a costly affair. it isn't just about maintaining upstart. It is also having to deal with two different type of init configuration scattered across the system, differences in handling many things including /etc/iniittab and /etc/fstab, having to maintain init scripts or upstart configuration files in all the different packages in addition to the systemd unit files and testing them regularly in the development cycle to ensure that changes we make for systemd doesn't impact negatively on upstart and so on. This is just silly. We have to draw the line somewhere Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
2011/6/14 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com: On 06/14/2011 03:15 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: From experience... i prefer having two tools available atleast to do every single job (especially when they exist) because then i have an easy fallback if one fails. Having upstart installed on rawhide during the f15 rawhide cycles was quite helpful to work around boot bugs on the fly without having to debug stuff or ending up with a nonbooting system (which makes it hard to dig up ml threads with workarounds, or up or downgrading packages). As long as someone maintains it i see no reason to exclude upstart completly from the repos. What do you about glibc bugs? Do you want to get them fixed or include alternatives? its been many years since i have seen a glibc bug that makes my system completly unbootable. i have had various issues during the last devel cycle where my system wouldnt boot anymore and upstart was a good shorttime fallback. having an alternative doesent mean that bugs should be covered instead fixed. i never proposed this and i am not sure why you start off like that on me. Having alternatives for each of the core components is a costly affair. it isn't just about maintaining upstart. It is also having to deal with two different type of init configuration scattered across the system, differences in handling many things including /etc/iniittab and /etc/fstab, having to maintain init scripts or upstart configuration files in all the different packages in addition to the systemd unit files and testing them regularly in the development cycle to ensure that changes we make for systemd doesn't impact negatively on upstart and so on. This is just silly. We have to draw the line somewhere I never proposed having alternatives for each of the core systems either... There is already a viable alternative that works. inittab contains atm exactly one line... the one with the default runlevel... and /etc/fstab can be parsed differently if there are changes. Also i do not understand the Argument with the unit files... they are systemd related. upstart isnt affected. Since upstart isnt installed by default anyways it also doesent matter for critical path. Got a hard time to follow your argumentation there. SystemV init scripts are already present and work quite well aswell. This is just silly. Not commenting that. We have to draw the line somewhere Draw your line ;) kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/14/2011 04:36 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: I never proposed having alternatives for each of the core systems either... There is already a viable alternative that works. inittab contains atm exactly one line... the one with the default runlevel... and /etc/fstab can be parsed differently if there are changes. systemd doesn't use /etc/inittab and upstart uses it. So you have to account for the differences and test them. Also i do not understand the Argument with the unit files... they are systemd related. upstart isnt affected. Since upstart isnt installed by default anyways it also doesent matter for critical path. Got a hard time to follow your argumentation there. SystemV init scripts are already present and work quite well aswell. You miss the point. Packages are already dropping init scripts and converting to using systemd unit files. To maintain upstart compatibility you have to continue to maintain sys init scripts in addition to systemd unit files and again make sure they don't diverge and they both work equivalently. Who is volunteering for that? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/14/2011 07:08 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/14/2011 04:36 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: I never proposed having alternatives for each of the core systems either... There is already a viable alternative that works. inittab contains atm exactly one line... the one with the default runlevel... and /etc/fstab can be parsed differently if there are changes. systemd doesn't use /etc/inittab and upstart uses it. So you have to account for the differences and test them. Also i do not understand the Argument with the unit files... they are systemd related. upstart isnt affected. Since upstart isnt installed by default anyways it also doesent matter for critical path. Got a hard time to follow your argumentation there. SystemV init scripts are already present and work quite well aswell. You miss the point. Packages are already dropping init scripts and converting to using systemd unit files. To maintain upstart compatibility you have to continue to maintain sys init scripts in addition to systemd unit files and again make sure they don't diverge and they both work equivalently. Who is volunteering for that? Rahul You already are maintaining multiple UI systems which seem to me to be much more complex than two different init systems. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/14/2011 04:56 PM, Steve Clark wrote: You already are maintaining multiple UI systems which seem to me to be much more complex than two different init systems. Not the same thing at all. Maintenance of desktop environments doesn't affect people outside a few people who do that. If I don't care about fluxbox, I can ignore it completely. Maintaining two init systems actively affects everyone who has a init script in their packages which is a lot more. This is non-trivial and I don't see why I should volunteer to test both a init script and a equivalent systemd unit file. If someone is interested in maintaining upstart for current Fedora 15 and above, they should take care of this entirely and I will do it for one init system which is the default one. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: Well you can't expect him to test every possible scenario (no matter how trivial it is). I never saw an fstab with a trailing slash so I wouldn't have though about testing it either. Same here. I actually spent a good chunk of my _volunteer_ testing time budget pre-release poking at systemd's capabilities for handling auto mounting because I really want to make use of it... and I didn't hit this bug. I guess I'm just conditioned to write my fstab entries a certain way. And if I've been conditioned to write them a certain way, it's not shocking that the mount command has an implicit assumption about the format as well. So in an effort to turn the corner of this and make a constructive discussion. Is directory path handling with regard to trailing slashes something worth adding as an autoQA test target in the future?Not just for mount but for a group of commands? Something worth considering? I'm happy to write the initial test script if this is something that makes sense to try to automate. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 14.06.2011 15:15, schrieb Jeff Spaleta: Is directory path handling with regard to trailing slashes something worth adding as an autoQA test target in the future?Not just for mount but for a group of commands? Something worth considering? I'm happy to write the initial test script if this is something that makes sense to try to automate. i think this would be a good idea PHP (my main language) is fighting with traling slash or not troubles over all the years, but there is nothing to stop the boot-process and systemd is a very different level of software signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: i think this would be a good idea PHP (my main language) is fighting with traling slash or not troubles over all the years, but there is nothing to stop the boot-process and systemd is a very different level of software Let's be clear...the bug was actually in mount...not systemd. And the fix has been committed for the mount binary according the bug ticket against the utils-linux package. So the problem has been solved very quickly after the _correct_ developers were notified via the established bug tracking mechanism. And its a weird bug for mount...not what I would have expected. Simple test outside of systemd for everyone falling along using a ntfs disk I just happened to have. First using an entry like this without a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt ntfsdefaults0 0 mount /mnt and mount /mnt/ both work and the drive mounts Second using an entry like this with a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt/ ntfsdefaults0 0 mount /mnt fails to mount with an error and mount /mnt/ succeeds What my very simple test shows is that this is totally inconsistent behavior on the part of mount in handling trailing slashes or the lack thereof. There's no good reason why that 1 failure should be happening especially when clearly the mount binary is internally manipulating trailing slashes in some cases. If it wasn't then I should have gotten a failure in the first case. Reindi, If you want to be passionate and be upset about system breakage, that is absolutely your right to do so. But I caution you that you are not channeling your passion effectively. I hope in the future you budget some time as a volunteer to be involved in the pre-release testing so you can help catch problems prior to release. I also hope you learn to be less aggressive when discussing issues with people with whom you don't have an established working relationship. And please, avoid prejudicing a new component of the software stack when things like this happen. New code typically does a better job at tickling implicit assumptions than experienced sysadmins and testers. In this case, mount is broken, and has been broken for years, and we've all been living with that brokenness and not realizing it because we've conditioned ourselves to interact with mount in a way that avoids the breakage. Please, lay the blame at the feet of the correct piece of software. In this case the mount binary is behaving inconsistently and has undocumented quirks that have gone unfixed for YEARS until this bug was filed and fixed. FIXED...I can't stress that enough...the fix has already been committed and we are just waiting for packages now. All systemd was doing was breaking an _undocumented_ _implicit_ _assumption_ that the mount command was using to map mount cmdline mountpoints to fstab entry mountpoints. Mount was assuming that when an fstab entry had a trailing slash then the mount cmdline mntpoint argument would also have a trailing slash and mount was failing when the trailing slash was missing in the cmdline argument. Is there a good reason for mount to do this? I can't think of one so far noone has defended mount's behavior in this regard. And as far as I know its not a documented behavior of mount. And since its not documented there was no reason that anyone (including the systemd authors) could know that stripping the trailing slash when parsing the fstab entry would cause mount to fail. Doubly so when the slash is missing mount processes cmndline mountpoints with trailing slashes without issue. Undocumented implicit assumptions are _bugs_ that cause all sorts of problem up and down the software stack. Spending days and days and days complaining about the piece of software that runs into such an implicit assumption is not the way to work through the problem. Identifying the software with the implicit assumption and either getting it documented or fixed to behave in a consistent, programmatic, robust manner is _always_ the proper way forward. This will be my last response to you on any of these threads. And while I understand why you are upset, and I respect your right to be upset over this issue, I am extremely disappointed in the choices you have made in expressing your opinions on the matter. I will not reward you further with interaction and attention until such time that its clear that you've learned how to tempter your emotion and can approach discussion over problems with more humility and less aggression. Good day, -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: i think this would be a good idea PHP (my main language) is fighting with traling slash or not troubles over all the years, but there is nothing to stop the boot-process and systemd is a very different level of software Let's be clear...the bug was actually in mount...not systemd. And the fix has been committed for the mount binary according the bug ticket against the utils-linux package. So the problem has been solved very quickly after the _correct_ developers were notified via the established bug tracking mechanism. And its a weird bug for mount...not what I would have expected. Simple test outside of systemd for everyone falling along using a ntfs disk I just happened to have. First using an entry like this without a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt ntfs defaults 0 0 mount /mnt and mount /mnt/ both work and the drive mounts Second using an entry like this with a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt/ ntfs defaults 0 0 mount /mnt fails to mount with an error and mount /mnt/ succeeds What my very simple test shows is that this is totally inconsistent behavior on the part of mount in handling trailing slashes or the lack thereof. There's no good reason why that 1 failure should be happening especially when clearly the mount binary is internally manipulating trailing slashes in some cases. If it wasn't then I should have gotten a failure in the first case. Reindi, If you want to be passionate and be upset about system breakage, that is absolutely your right to do so. But I caution you that you are not channeling your passion effectively. I hope in the future you budget some time as a volunteer to be involved in the pre-release testing so you can help catch problems prior to release. I also hope you learn to be less aggressive when discussing issues with people with whom you don't have an established working relationship. And please, avoid prejudicing a new component of the software stack when things like this happen. New code typically does a better job at tickling implicit assumptions than experienced sysadmins and testers. In this case, mount is broken, and has been broken for years, and we've all been living with that brokenness and not realizing it because we've conditioned ourselves to interact with mount in a way that avoids the breakage. Please, lay the blame at the feet of the correct piece of software. In this case the mount binary is behaving inconsistently and has undocumented quirks that have gone unfixed for YEARS until this bug was filed and fixed. FIXED...I can't stress that enough...the fix has already been committed and we are just waiting for packages now. All systemd was doing was breaking an _undocumented_ _implicit_ _assumption_ that the mount command was using to map mount cmdline mountpoints to fstab entry mountpoints. Mount was assuming that when an fstab entry had a trailing slash then the mount cmdline mntpoint argument would also have a trailing slash and mount was failing when the trailing slash was missing in the cmdline argument. Is there a good reason for mount to do this? I can't think of one so far noone has defended mount's behavior in this regard. And as far as I know its not a documented behavior of mount. And since its not documented there was no reason that anyone (including the systemd authors) could know that stripping the trailing slash when parsing the fstab entry would cause mount to fail. Doubly so when the slash is missing mount processes cmndline mountpoints with trailing slashes without issue. I understand the inconsistency and it is indeed a bug in mount. Nevertheless you are missing the point. If X worked before (X=mounting at boot with fstab containing trailing slashes), and stops working now because of the change Y I made, I am responsible for fixing X or Y. The question of 'which one contains the bug' is irrelevant for the user. Some folks think that this is a corner case and it is easy to miss. I think that this is a fundamental mistake and this should be one of the first things a programmer should learn. It pretty much compares a physicist forgetting F=ma. Well, we all do mistakes. Unfortunately, it caused problems for at least a couple people. Hopefully the programmer learned his lesson. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com wrote: I understand the inconsistency and it is indeed a bug in mount. Nevertheless you are missing the point. If X worked before (X=mounting at boot with fstab containing trailing slashes), and stops working now because of the change Y I made, I can't remember seeing ever seeing an fstab that uses trailing slashes in an operational system that I've had access to. We don't auto-generate trailing slash mount points entries in fstab. I didn't even _think_ to test it when I was doing my due diligence for systemd testing during pre-release. And since I know I'm smarter than everyone involved with systemd development put together, it would be unfair of me to expect them to have caught this So why have I never seen a trailing slash on an operational fstab mount point on a linux system? Why don't we generate trailing slash mountpoints automatically in our default fstab config on install? Most likely, because experienced sysadmins over the years have probably conditioned themselves to avoid using trailing slash entries because of mount's existing cmdline quirk and everyone's been too busy/lazy to file the bug to get mount fixed. Until you run into it on the cmdline yourself, its not noticable. And even then its easier to just fix your custom mountpoints and remove the slash. I am responsible for fixing X or Y. Fixed.The utils-linux developers have fixed it very quickly once someone actually filed a bug. The question of 'which one contains the bug' is irrelevant for the user. Sure...I'm not saying otherwise. But this isn't a user list. This is a devel list and we are having a discussion about development. From a user perspective it just needs to get fixed...and it is going to get fixed with an updated utils-linux as soon as possible. From a strict user perspective problem solved. Some folks think that this is a corner case and it is easy to miss. I didn't think to test it. Did you test it? There is no evidence what-so-ever that anyone actually tested this prior to release. And as far as I know the person who ran into this is the only person on the planet who writes trailing slash fstab entries. And since we..in Fedora...don't populate fstab entries by default in the install or live images with trailing slashes there's no _expectation_ that this will be tested as part of QA testing. I'm going to re-iterate that. QA has finite resources and a narrowly defined testing mandate. Syntax quirks of this nature which are not used in the install targets will not be found prior to release without the help of people out in the userbase who are willing to volunteer and test their real world setups which diverge from the default configs. If trailing slashes were so common as to not be thought of as a corner-case then it is reasonable to assume someone would have hit this prior to release and shouted about it on one of the lists. Didn't happen. I think that this is a fundamental mistake and this should be one of the first things a programmer should learn. It pretty much compares a physicist forgetting F=ma. Well, we all do mistakes. Speaking as a PhD physicist who develops and maintains software for experimental research that an international collaboration of PhD physicists and students blindly rely on in order to do science without being expected to understanding how the actual hardware or software works in detail... I think you are very wrong. Simply put, F=ma is well documented. Mount's slash handling behavior is undocumented. If its undocumented behavior there is no expectation that it can be tested or verified. Unfortunately, it caused problems for at least a couple people. Hopefully the programmer learned his lesson. Sure a couple of people, who did not invest in the pre-release testing process. I hope those couple of people learned their lesson. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:56:55AM +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:42:15 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: and why does it STOP the boot-process at a point no network is available? Mounts from /etc/fstab are considered required unless they are marked with the nofail option. Is it backwardly compatible with traditional mount -a? The nofail means do not report errors for this device if it does not exist. The mount -a stops on fatal errors (e.g. ENOMEM) only. Karel -- Karel Zak k...@redhat.com http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. How is it systemd's fault that the user's fstab is invalid? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
WTF - Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 05:58, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: and even on a new setup this should be a decision of the user at the very beginning what init-system he wants to us No, the choice of this kind of core under-the-hood system components should be a decision of the distribution. thats freedom? To the user, it should be only an implementation detail. To the software on the distribution, it should matter that they can rely on the core system components being what they are and not have a user replace something as central as the init system. and usually HE CAN NOT with the most new technologies introduced in Fedora the first two releases (PulseAudio, KDE 4.0...) I think it makes no sense whatsoever to even OFFER upstart in F15+ as we are doing. I don't see any valid reason why you'd use it over systemd. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 because your fukcing holy cow is not well tested and stable enough and that it was planned for Fedora 14 and reverted at the last moment and now a version later /run was introduced and discussed not long ago shows that there are some peopole in the fedora community with the only interest getting their stuff to as many users as possible without a real interest if they can live with it You complain about some bugs in systemd, those should be reported as bugs and fixed. AND THAT IIS WHY YOZ SHOULD INSTALL SYSTEMD ONLY FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS TO GET A USERBASE FOR BUGREPORTS AND LAVE SINCE YEARS LUCKY USERS FUCK IN PEACE signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:08:02 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: How is it systemd's fault that the user's fstab is invalid? A trailing slash in the mountpoint is not too common, but valid. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 08:48, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:14:27 -0400 Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. Strictly speaking, it parses the slash correctly and it's a bug in /bin/mount. But I understand that's hardly a consolation for those who are affected by this bug. this is not a point of understand mount /mnt/storage works and finds /mnt/storage/ in /etc/fstab before upstart it worked for years, i even did not know that the slash must not be at the end signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS My opinion: You know what was wrong, sir - you put on your 20 servers Fedora - free software. And that means that you can't get personal support, because most of real developers are employees of Redhat. Have you notice that they use Fedora like a toy, to play with, to test a new ideas, to try new things on it. Developers do not count it like anything serious - it is a toy for them. Today they decided that upstart is wrong and they need systemd, tomorrow they can change their mind, they going to implement btrfs soon. Fedora is a test toy. Do not expect any respect for the long time use. And that is why linux is not so popular - it has always been a TOY and nothing more. Consider to use something different for your server or solve your problems by your self. Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Michal Schmidt: Stop the profanities and insults, or stop posting to this mailing list. sorry but for a answer like below form Kevin Kofler i have no other words as idiot, really! where is defined taht it is invalid and why only for systemd if it is so well designed and production ready like some cowboys are thinking which decides for the rest of the users too? it is ALPHA software and some are not realizing that we are not speaking about a sound-daemon stopping you hear music we are speaking about the most important component of the system! Am 13.06.2011 09:08, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. How is it systemd's fault that the user's fstab is invalid? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:26:46 +0400 Lucas wrote: Have you notice that they use Fedora like a toy, to play with, to test a new ideas, to try new things on it. Developers do not count it like anything serious - it is a toy for them. Today they decided that upstart is wrong and they need systemd, tomorrow they can change their mind, they going to implement btrfs soon. Fedora is a test toy. Do not expect any respect for the long time use. And that is why linux is not so popular - it has always been a TOY and nothing more. Consider to use something different for your server or solve your problems by your self. I disagree. Fedora is much more than a toy to me. I use it every day for work. I hope it is the same for the most of the developers. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: WTF - Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 05:58, schrieb Kevin Kofler: No, the choice of this kind of core under-the-hood system components should be a decision of the distribution. thats freedom? You have the freedom to fork Fedora. Good luck! A distribution is about integration of different components, not about a random hodegepodge of stuff which doesn't work together. You should not expect all the software to cooperate with an obsolete init system. (In particular, why should services have to ship legacy initscripts (or native upstart configuration) along with the native systemd modules (which are required for efficiency)? systemd is also going to take up more and more roles in the very near future, e.g. replacing ConsoleKit.) and usually HE CAN NOT with the most new technologies introduced in Fedora the first two releases (PulseAudio, KDE 4.0...) PulseAudio was actually replaceable when it was initially introduced. It even still is to some extent. IMHO that only makes it harder to make things just work. For KDE, it was just plain impossible to support both 3.5 and 4.0 in the same distribution without violating the FHS. All the other distributions which offer both versions of KDE are installing at least one to a non-FHS prefix. Supporting only 4.0 also meant we could tweak kdelibs3 to integrate better into a KDE 4 environment, e.g. we use the KDE 4 KHelpCenter for help, the KDE 4 DrKonqi if a kdelibs3 app crashes etc. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 As I said in another message, it's not systemd's fault if your fstab is invalid. Fix your fstab. (And systemd is even getting a workaround to accept such broken fstab files.) and that it was planned for Fedora 14 and reverted at the last moment I also consider that a mistake. The issues found during testing were all fixed in time for the Fedora 14 release. Reverting the feature achieved exactly nothing. and now a version later /run was introduced and discussed not long ago shows that there are some peopole in the fedora community with the only interest getting their stuff to as many users as possible without a real interest if they can live with it How would you not be able to live with /run? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/13/2011 11:40 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 09:37, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:26:46 +0400 Lucas wrote: Have you notice that they use Fedora like a toy, to play with, to test a new ideas, to try new things on it. Developers do not count it like anything serious - it is a toy for them. Today they decided that upstart is wrong and they need systemd, tomorrow they can change their mind, they going to implement btrfs soon. Fedora is a test toy. Do not expect any respect for the long time use. And that is why linux is not so popular - it has always been a TOY and nothing more. Consider to use something different for your server or solve your problems by your self. I disagree. Fedora is much more than a toy to me. I use it every day for work. I hope it is the same for the most of the developers. and if not they should be quickly sorted out before shortly after systemd will get stable sooner or later the next one comes out with a new replacement and all peopole forget how long sysvinit worked very well and that this should be the measure for quality Also, be prepared - Fedora 13 end of life on 2011-06-24, next is yours Fedora 14 and it will be very soon. After that time no one will talk to you. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Reindl Harald wrote: and some are not realizing that we are not speaking about a sound-daemon stopping you hear music we are speaking about the most important component of the system! That's exactly why we shouldn't let users replace it at random. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: WTF - Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 01:59:43 PM Monday, June 13, 2011 Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 05:58, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: and even on a new setup this should be a decision of the user at the very beginning what init-system he wants to us No, the choice of this kind of core under-the-hood system components should be a decision of the distribution. thats freedom? Yes, this is the freedom of the people that do the work to take some decisions. Freedom is one of the rights for people that work on the distribution too, don't you think so ? To the user, it should be only an implementation detail. To the software on the distribution, it should matter that they can rely on the core system components being what they are and not have a user replace something as central as the init system. and usually HE CAN NOT with the most new technologies introduced in Fedora the first two releases (PulseAudio, KDE 4.0...) I think it makes no sense whatsoever to even OFFER upstart in F15+ as we are doing. I don't see any valid reason why you'd use it over systemd. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 because your fukcing holy cow is not well tested and stable enough and that it was planned for Fedora 14 and reverted at the last moment and now a version later /run was introduced and discussed not long ago shows that there are some peopole in the fedora community with the only interest getting their stuff to as many users as possible without a real interest if they can live with it You complain about some bugs in systemd, those should be reported as bugs and fixed. AND THAT IIS WHY YOZ SHOULD INSTALL SYSTEMD ONLY FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS TO GET A USERBASE FOR BUGREPORTS AND LAVE SINCE YEARS LUCKY USERS FUCK IN PEACE And who is gonna do the testing of 2 distributions? Because testing 2 different init systems is like testing 2 different distributions. Fedora QA are already overloaded enough so we can't make that on them. And who is gonna do the work on all the patches for working with and making use of the features of the 2 different init systems? I would not do such thing for my packages for sure. As soon as some core component changes I'll support it only whenever I'm involved. YES, THIS IS MY FREEDOM TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO! Though I'll let everyone that wants to comaintain smth to do the work to support alternatives but I'm still failing to see the army of contributors just sitting and waiting for what to do. Until this happens people should remember that the one that do the works has freedom too and if they don't like smth they are free to come with better implementation and offer it. Alexander Kurtakov -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 02:12:43 PM Monday, June 13, 2011 Lucas wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS My opinion: You know what was wrong, sir - you put on your 20 servers Fedora - free software. And that means that you can't get personal support, because most of real developers are employees of Redhat. Have you notice that they use Fedora like a toy, to play with, to test a new ideas, to try new things on it. Developers do not count it like anything serious - it is a toy for them. Today they decided that upstart is wrong and they need systemd, tomorrow they can change their mind, they going to implement btrfs soon. Fedora is a test toy. Do not expect any respect for the long time use. And that is why linux is not so popular - it has always been a TOY and nothing more. Consider to use something different for your server or solve your problems by your self. The generalization that we(Red Hat associates) see Fedora as a toy is INSULTING. Do you know how many of us are spending their free time to get Fedora better? Do you know how many of us have worked on Fedora(or related things) before working for Red Hat? Do you know how big part of the Red Hat work is available in Fedora without being available in RHEL? Yes, we have opinions and we stick to them - most of the time without our managers even know - because it's smth we do on our own. Speaking personally everyone can accuse me of not fullfilling some user's wishes (which I'm not oblided to do) but someone saying that I(we) look at Fedora as a toy is really hurting a lot of feelings. Alexander Kurtakov Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
* Steve Clark [13/06/2011 14:04] : Maybe Fedora should adhere to Linus's rule that we don't have regressions that break users stuff. Linus has no such thing. Google the min/max incident and the amount of drivers that were removed from the kernel tree before 2.4.0's release if you want proof. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/13/2011 03:27 PM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: On 02:12:43 PM Monday, June 13, 2011 Lucas wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS My opinion: You know what was wrong, sir - you put on your 20 servers Fedora - free software. And that means that you can't get personal support, because most of real developers are employees of Redhat. Have you notice that they use Fedora like a toy, to play with, to test a new ideas, to try new things on it. Developers do not count it like anything serious - it is a toy for them. Today they decided that upstart is wrong and they need systemd, tomorrow they can change their mind, they going to implement btrfs soon. Fedora is a test toy. Do not expect any respect for the long time use. And that is why linux is not so popular - it has always been a TOY and nothing more. Consider to use something different for your server or solve your problems by your self. The generalization that we(Red Hat associates) see Fedora as a toy is INSULTING. Do you know how many of us are spending their free time to get Fedora better? Do you know how many of us have worked on Fedora(or related things) before working for Red Hat? Do you know how big part of the Red Hat work is available in Fedora without being available in RHEL? Yes, we have opinions and we stick to them - most of the time without our managers even know - because it's smth we do on our own. Speaking personally everyone can accuse me of not fullfilling some user's wishes (which I'm not oblided to do) but someone saying that I(we) look at Fedora as a toy is really hurting a lot of feelings. Alexander Kurtakov Thanks. What do you think I thought when found that udev was compiled: * Fri May 20 2011 Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com 170-1 - version 170 - removed /sbin/start_udev REMOVED /sbin/start_udev - this means that upstart wont be able to start udev without manual tweak. Upstart reads rc.sysinit and there is still /sbin/start_udev. And also this means that any one who will try to use upstart in Fedora 16 (now rawhide) wont get udev works. What do you think I thought about all of this? I wont be really upset if I'll lose upstart, I can clean systemd as I need, but the idea is wrong. Systemd is just a project, project which may tomorrow be changed, so why all others have to follow. It should be like selinux, which can be easily disabled selinux=0. That is what I think. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/13/2011 05:28 PM, Steve Clark wrote: Maybe Fedora should adhere to Linus's rule that we don't have regressions that break users stuff. I get the impression Fedora doesn't care about users and is only interested in pushing the agenda of the developers. It is too bad that Fedora doesn't have a reasonable benevolent dictator like Linus. Linux kernel routinely has many regressions that affect end users. Kernel developers try to solve known regressions before the release and so does Fedora. The problem with have distribution level dictators is the potential for abuse of power. I don't think you want that. Atleast in this case, the bug was actually filed long after the release and hence wasn't a known regression that was ignored. I don't think you can blame Fedora here. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/13/2011 06:10 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 06/13/2011 08:23 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * Steve Clark [13/06/2011 14:04] : Maybe Fedora should adhere to Linus's rule that we don't have regressions that break users stuff. Linus has no such thing. Google the min/max incident and the amount of drivers that were removed from the kernel tree before 2.4.0's release if you want proof. Emmanuel http://apcmag.com/linus_torvalds_on_regression_laziness_and_having_his_code_rejected.htm This article doesn't really justify your point. Reading LKML would show you the reality. If you actually believe that any one person can stop kernel regressions, that is remarkably naive and avoiding regressions at the distribution level is many times more impossible because of the number of components. We can make reasonable attempts to avoid them. That's all. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: WTF - Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: because your fukcing holy cow This type of language is inappropriate for a Fedora mailing list. Please tone down the language. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am Montag, den 13.06.2011, 01:47 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 13.06.2011 00:54, schrieb Christoph Wickert: Am Sonntag, den 12.06.2011, 23:23 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before systems upgraded with yum still have upstart installed (I did it myself) and you can select the init as a kernel parameter, so obviously nobody is forced. my first test-setup had no upstart after upgrade You did read the instructions about upgrading with yum and ran 'yum distrosync', right? this is a bad user experience and shows my that systemd had been better delayed again for Fedora 16 to not repeat the bad things happended with the way too early incldunfig of pulseaudio and KDE4.0 AND we are speaking here about the absolutely core-system and not a sound-daemon or a desktop environment Please keep in mind that that one of Fedora's foundation is to be first. Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations Both KDE 4 and pulseaudio were ready for inclusion when we first had them in our distribution. Software is always changing, development never stops. If you want to move on, you need to draw a line at some point and put it into production in order to get wider feedback. Without this feedback neither pulseaudio nor KDE would be where they are right now. Fedora is a distribution for early adopters. If you really need the latest kernel for your new hardware but also long term stability please get an enterprise distribution. Regards, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:30, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 13.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Michal Schmidt: Stop the profanities and insults, or stop posting to this mailing list. sorry but for a answer like below form Kevin Kofler i have no other words as idiot, really! where is defined taht it is invalid and why only for systemd if it is so well designed and production ready like some cowboys are thinking which decides for the rest of the users too? I do not regularly agree with Kevin Kofler, but you can call him what you want in private email til the days are done. At this point I am going to ask for someone from the Community Working Group to step in and see how we can better get along here. If you have a problem with that, I think it would be better if you took some time off and did something else for a couple of hours/days. -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:39:02AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I do not regularly agree with Kevin Kofler, but you can call him what you want in private email til the days are done. At this point I am going to ask for someone from the Community Working Group to step in and see how we can better get along here. If you have a problem with that, I think it would be better if you took some time off and did something else for a couple of hours/days. I've emailed Reindl privately to remind him of the standards of behaviour we expect on mailing lists. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: WTF - Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: because your fukcing holy cow This type of language is inappropriate for a Fedora mailing list. Please tone down the language. I'd go further than that. Swearing is not inherently an issue. The problem is abusive and aggressive behaviour. We expect participants in the community to demonstrate appropriate levels of respect for one another. Not agreeing with the rationale for a decision does not inherently mean that the decision was inappropriate, and is certainly not grounds for abusing those who made that decision. Let's remember that these lists are one of the public faces of the project and try to make sure we don't alienate potential contributors through our behaviour, swearing or otherwise. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:45:57 +0100 Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:39:02AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I do not regularly agree with Kevin Kofler, but you can call him what you want in private email til the days are done. At this point I am going to ask for someone from the Community Working Group to step in and see how we can better get along here. If you have a problem with that, I think it would be better if you took some time off and did something else for a couple of hours/days. I've emailed Reindl privately to remind him of the standards of behaviour we expect on mailing lists. As have I. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 23:39 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.06.2011 23:35, schrieb Josh Boyer: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS BULL***, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR! there is nothing bullshit why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it I totally disagree with the way you phrase your arguments. It is inappropriate, and actually hurts the point you are trying to make. However, I partially agree with the argument itself. Gnome 3 Shell is an example of a far worse surprise, IMO, than systemd. It's a disaster, especially for those poor souls which convinced some firm or school or university to use Fedora, and now have to face angry mobs of users pissed off by abrupt switch to a different desktop manager. Talk about ruined reputations... But at least there F15 has an alternative. Now I use XFCE. -- vda -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/13/2011 11:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: . At this point I am going to ask for someone from the Community Working Group to step in and see how we can better get along here. If you have a problem with that, I think it would be better if you took some time off and did something else for a couple of hours/days. I agree - we can disagree on issues (technical, design or whatever) but lets keep this discourse professional. Sure, there are issues - there are and always will be - but tone it down and try be constructive not destructive in communicating your thoughts and concerns. We all understand the emotions that hit you when things don't work they way you want ... so contribute and help make it better - just yelling and complaining about how -you- are impacted is not the way. Be polite - be respectful ... be a partner with all the other Fedorians (Fedorans? Fedoronians ? Fedoras ? Fedorafolks?) You've had polite responses in varying degrees - take the cue - be constructive even when being critical which is healthy if done right. gene -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:14:27 -0400 Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. Strictly speaking, it parses the slash correctly and it's a bug in /bin/mount. But I understand that's hardly a consolation for those who are affected by this bug. Right, if it was working before and stopped working now, pointing fingers at this point will not help the situation. Such a trivial scenario could have been tested and fixed by the author of the code before it was released to public. I hope this will stay as worst bug in systemd (or triggered by systemd, however you want to put it). Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS attachment: screen.png signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS BULL***, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR! josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 12.06.2011 23:35, schrieb Josh Boyer: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS BULL***, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR! there is nothing bullshit why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:39:17PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it I don't agree with the design or the implementation of systemd at all but to call the developers idiots is a little harsh, don't you think? And you shouting in a public mailing list doesn't do much to help your cause. You've a strong tendency to go off at the least little thing, and not only here. Might you consider toning it down? Just a little? John -- To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799), German scientist, satirist and philosopher, Notebook D (1773-1775) pgpp0iBDgmlwM.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 12.06.2011 23:35, schrieb Josh Boyer: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS BULL***, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR! there is nothing bullshit Oh, you were trying to have a conversation about something? Sorry, with all the shouting I thought we were doing impromptu Gunnery Sergeant Hartman quotes from Full Metal Jacket. why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored I actually don't know the answer to this question other than Fedora switched to systemd. WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it Amazing what one motivated maintainer and their package can accomplish while everyone else is shouting. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 12.06.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:39:17PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it I don't agree with the design or the implementation of systemd at all i agree with the design and idea but not with forcing every user with since years perfectly running systems to use it without any reason - the are hughe differences between a new setup and a upgrade and even on a new setup this should be a decision of the user at the very beginning what init-system he wants to use but to call the developers idiots is a little harsh, don't you think? And you shouting in a public mailing list doesn't do much to help your cause. sorry but it makes me crazy that intel-graphics on newer hardware is slow and buggy like hell and thean cames somebody and says upgrade to Fedora 15 with his little desktop without any developer-tools and services perfectly configured over years signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 12.06.2011 23:45, schrieb Josh Boyer: why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored I actually don't know the answer to this question other than Fedora switched to systemd cool - on linux the apple-way starts also? great - the desicion force systemd for updated installations is the best way to crap down the reputation of linux as a system where the user can decide what he want to run signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 12/06/11 22:54, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.06.2011 23:45, schrieb Josh Boyer: why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored snip Try yum install upstart, kernel arg init=/sbin/upstart YMMV. -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 23:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS Why run Fedora itself on 20 servers? Those are mission capable and in a production environment? Might be free, but not sure I would run all those on this type environment. A slower and more stable platform that is free might be better. That's beside the point, why are you not testing upgrades and working out the issues yourself before even trying, in a test environment? Actually, if they need no magic and are fast enough, why upgrade at all right now and wait until everything is worked out? Not telling you what to do, just bringing up different points/suggestions. -- Mike Chambers Madisonville, KY The best town on Earth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
RE: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before No one is stopping you from packaging upstart (assuming someone hasn't done so) for F15. * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES No one is forcing you to use F15 I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS If you're running that many servers, then why are you running Fedora? Considering that Fedora has a stated mission to be the first to introduce new software and that releases are only supported for thirteen months, would it not be wise to go with a distribution that has a) more mature code and b) longer support? John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 12.06.2011 23:58, schrieb Frank Murphy: On 12/06/11 22:54, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.06.2011 23:45, schrieb Josh Boyer: why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored snip Try yum install upstart, kernel arg init=/sbin/upstart and that this does not happen automatic on an UPGRADE is a major fault! it seems also not very well working and telling / is already mounted Dateisysteme prüfen /dev/md1: sauber, 48557/1905008 Dateien, 477525/7607040 Blöcke /dev/md0: sauber, 38/128016 Dateien, 47146/511988 Blöcke [ OK ] Root-Dateisystem mit Schreib- und Lesezugriff neu einhängen[ OK ] mount: Laut mtab ist /dev/md1 schon auf / eingehängt Lokale Dateisysteme einhängen: [FEHLGESCHLAGEN] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/12/2011 05:39 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.06.2011 23:35, schrieb Josh Boyer: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS BULL***, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR! there is nothing bullshit why are users of running systems are forced to change their init-system to systemd? upstart is in the repos but ignored WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it sarcasmdon't you know you will save 15-30 seconds each time you boot up/sarcasm -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:00, schrieb Mike Chambers: On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 23:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: I DO NOT NEED SYSTEMD ON 20 SERVERS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STARTING FAST ENOUGH AND I NEED NO MAGIC WHICH THINKS KNOWS WHAT TO START IN WHICH ORDER SINCE I KNOW WHAT IS RUNNING ON MY SYSTEMS Why run Fedora itself on 20 servers? Because it works perfectly with one version behind Those are mission capable and in a production environment? yes and this time on F14 but the clock goes fast around and since F14 is not supporting the hardware of my new work station (Intel graphics / Sandy Brdige) i have to play around with F15 A slower and more stable platform that is free might be better. Running Fedora since F7 in production environments without any downtime bcause the OS or any upgrade-problems showing that i know what i do That's beside the point, why are you not testing upgrades and working out the issues yourself before even trying, in a test environment? what do you believe what i am doing here? the test says i do not want this crap in this early devel-state on my servers end of the year nobody knows what systemd mislikes on /mnt/storage because if i uncomment it the system starts without any issue and manually mounting works on the other hand this crap tells me the follwoing without bringing httpd up [root@testserver:~]$ service httpd start Starting httpd (via systemctl): [ OK ] [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not create /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] httpd: could not log pid to file /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid well this is the F14 build of Apache but shows me that i will go to hell if the output of service start is no longer trustable as years before Actually, if they need no magic and are fast enough, why upgrade at all right now and wait until everything is worked out? because i do not update the servers, i try to bring up my test/build-environemt to get my workstation supported which relys on the same packages as production-servers (ffmpeg, newer httpd-versions, newer php-versions) Not telling you what to do, just bringing up different points/suggestions i knowing my job very well and because this is so i have to upgrade to F15 a longer time before the servers and i see NO SINGLE REASON for systemd on a server at all! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:13, schrieb Steve Clark: WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it sarcasmdon't you know you will save 15-30 seconds each time you boot up/sarcasm someone come out there and show me how will a 20 second-reboot on the vmware-guest production servers will get 20 seconds faster everybody out there is crying about boot / start times have the peopole nothing to do as reboot their machines? normally i start a computer and then it runs for a day, some weeks or even some months, the same with open programs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:04, schrieb John Dulaney: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before No one is stopping you from packaging upstart (assuming someone hasn't done so) for F15. it is in the repos and it is replaced by systemd via yum dist-upgrade this is bullshit and should never happen by an upgrade * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES No one is forcing you to use F15 not today but in some months signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On 06/12/2011 06:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 00:13, schrieb Steve Clark: WTF every three years a new pig is forced to run through the city and if any subsystem is runnign well and debugged some idiot comes out of his hole and try replace and force everybody to use it sarcasmdon't you know you will save 15-30 seconds each time you boot up/sarcasm someone come out there and show me how will a 20 second-reboot on the vmware-guest production servers will get 20 seconds faster everybody out there is crying about boot / start times have the peopole nothing to do as reboot their machines? normally i start a computer and then it runs for a day, some weeks or even some months, the same with open programs I agree - saying a main feature of systemd is improved boot times is idiotic. I you boot your system in the morning and shut it down at night what does 30 seconds mean out of 8*60*60 seconds? Nothing. If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:23, schrieb Steve Clark: On 06/12/2011 06:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: sarcasmdon't you know you will save 15-30 seconds each time you boot up/sarcasm someone come out there and show me how will a 20 second-reboot on the vmware-guest production servers will get 20 seconds faster everybody out there is crying about boot / start times have the peopole nothing to do as reboot their machines? normally i start a computer and then it runs for a day, some weeks or even some months, the same with open programs I agree - saying a main feature of systemd is improved boot times is idiotic. I you boot your system in the morning and shut it down at night what does 30 seconds mean out of 8*60*60 seconds? Nothing. If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! suspend to disk with 16 GB RAM - have fun :-) i have really no problem with systemd but it would be wise to use it only for new installations to get a wider userbase without spit current users in their face instead give them time to play and decide while have the benefit of nerwer kernels and better hardware-support this time systemd is not trustable since if there is a problem with httpd the anser of a service start is OK and the service was not started [root@testserver:~]$ service httpd start Starting httpd (via systemctl): [ OK ] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am Sonntag, den 12.06.2011, 23:23 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before systems upgraded with yum still have upstart installed (I did it myself) and you can select the init as a kernel parameter, so obviously nobody is forced. Regards, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 13.06.2011 00:23, schrieb Steve Clark: On 06/12/2011 06:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: sarcasmdon't you know you will save 15-30 seconds each time you boot up/sarcasm someone come out there and show me how will a 20 second-reboot on the vmware-guest production servers will get 20 seconds faster everybody out there is crying about boot / start times have the peopole nothing to do as reboot their machines? normally i start a computer and then it runs for a day, some weeks or even some months, the same with open programs I agree - saying a main feature of systemd is improved boot times is idiotic. I you boot your system in the morning and shut it down at night what does 30 seconds mean out of 8*60*60 seconds? Nothing. If your are concerned with boot times suspend to disk! suspend to disk with 16 GB RAM - have fun :-) i have really no problem with systemd but it would be wise to use it only for new installations to get a wider userbase without spit current users in their face instead give them time to play and decide while have the benefit of nerwer kernels and better hardware-support 1) You said you aren't going to start a flamewar but still opened a new thread shouting some random I hate change, how dare you FORCE something new on me BS 2) No users upgrading should not have a degraded user experience because some users are afraid of changes (those shouldn't be running a distro like fedora in the first place) and to use your words they shouldn't be FORCED to take manual steps to get current software (i.e that is what the upgrade was all about after all). 3) We have a site called bugzilla where problems are supposed to be reported, flamewars do not really solve problems -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:54, schrieb Christoph Wickert: Am Sonntag, den 12.06.2011, 23:23 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before systems upgraded with yum still have upstart installed (I did it myself) and you can select the init as a kernel parameter, so obviously nobody is forced. my first test-setup had no upstart after upgrade this was only a minimal-installation with RAID10 to look if the RAID is alive after update to F15 the test-machine with the troubles was even not able to reboot after yum-upgrade, after hard restart systemd meant it can not relabel (the system was started with selinux=0 param) and not mount a volume after found out how to ignore this a manual mount /mnt/storage mounted the volume systemd meant it could not without any issue forcing upstart gives error-messages while botting about /sys and / Dateisysteme prüfen /dev/md1: sauber, 48557/1905008 Dateien, 477525/7607040 Blöcke /dev/md0: sauber, 38/128016 Dateien, 47146/511988 Blöcke [ OK ] Root-Dateisystem mit Schreib- und Lesezugriff neu einhängen[ OK ] mount: Laut mtab ist /dev/md1 schon auf / eingehängt Lokale Dateisysteme einhängen: [FEHLGESCHLAGEN] this is a bad user experience and shows my that systemd had been better delayed again for Fedora 16 to not repeat the bad things happended with the way too early incldunfig of pulseaudio and KDE4.0 AND we are speaking here about the absolutely core-system and not a sound-daemon or a desktop environment signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 00:04, schrieb John Dulaney: PLEASE give us a option for systems upgraded with yum NOT USING systemd and force upstart as before No one is stopping you from packaging upstart (assuming someone hasn't done so) for F15. it is in the repos and it is replaced by systemd via yum dist-upgrade this is bullshit and should never happen by an upgrade No, it does happen with upgrade. systemd is supposed to replace upstart whenever an upgrade from F15 is installed. It is explicitly stated that systemd is the default feature, and, as such, it will be installed by default. Therefore, it should happen, and the fact that it does mean that it is working. Essentially, if you do not want systemd, don't use Fedora 15. It is that simple. * the system is running since years * every dist-upgrade via yum was no problem * now see screenshot * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param WHY IN THE WORLD ARE USERS FORCED TO USE SYSTEMD ONLY BECAUSE THEY UPGRAD TO F15? DO THIS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS BUT NEVER ON UPDATES No one is forcing you to use F15 not today but in some months How so? How is it that in 'some months' you will be forced to use systemd? Are the Chinese going to torture you until you make the switch? Why not go with another distro that does not use systemd, rather than complaining on here and mommicking the rest of us? It really seems that Fedora is not the distribution that fits your application. John Dulaney -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 02:28, schrieb John Dulaney: not today but in some months How so? How is it that in 'some months' you will be forced to use systemd? Are the Chinese going to torture you until you make the switch? F14 EOL? No Kernel 2.6.38 while Kernel-Update in the support-cycle not so long ago were absolutly normal - results in F14 bot supporting the Network-Card of my new Workstation, the intel graphcics drivers in F14 are a joke so F14 does not support my hardware because some release changes in the shorter past F15 is a breakage in core-system Why not go with another distro that does not use systemd, rather than complaining on here and mommicking the rest of us? It really seems that Fedora is not the distribution that fits your application. I am using Fedora * since Fedora Core 3 in production * since Fedora Core 5 on Desktops * since Fedora 7 on VOIP Server * since Fedora 9 on all Web/Mail-Servers and NOW it should be the wrong distribution? other things you are dreaming about? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:23:30 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: * now see screenshot That's probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param Although fedora-autorelabel.service is there, it does not imply that anything is being relabeled. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:16:00 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not create /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] httpd: could not log pid to file /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid well this is the F14 build of Apache but shows me that i will go to hell if the output of service start is no longer trustable as years before The F14 build does not have the necessary /etc/tmpfiles.d/httpd.conf file to ensure /var/run/httpd is created on boot. Running F14 packages on F15 is not expected to work. Don't do that. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 02:38, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:23:30 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: * now see screenshot That's probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 * WTF is there to relabel if started with selinux=0-kernel-param Although fedora-autorelabel.service is there, it does not imply that anything is being relabeled. and why does it STOP the boot-process at a point no network is available? i thought systemd is magic and does everytime know what is needed why does it start the relabel service i never see with selinux=0 and break the system? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 02:42, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:16:00 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not create /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid [Sun Jun 12 23:30:40 2011] [error] httpd: could not log pid to file /var/run/httpd/httpd.pid well this is the F14 build of Apache but shows me that i will go to hell if the output of service start is no longer trustable as years before The F14 build does not have the necessary /etc/tmpfiles.d/httpd.conf file to ensure /var/run/httpd is created on boot. i am not merlin to build packages before upgrade Running F14 packages on F15 is not expected to work. Don't do that. i will not do that, my F15 package is built after that but it shows that the widely use of systemd is too soon because this crap has to say FAILED and not OK in this case! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:42:15 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: and why does it STOP the boot-process at a point no network is available? Mounts from /etc/fstab are considered required unless they are marked with the nofail option. why does it start the relabel service i never see with selinux=0 and break the system? The relabel service was NOT started according to the screenshot. It was aborted. When you manage to fix the mnt-storate.mount problem, it will not start the relabel either. A condition for it to start will not be met. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 02:56, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:42:15 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: and why does it STOP the boot-process at a point no network is available? Mounts from /etc/fstab are considered required unless they are marked with the nofail option. why does it start the relabel service i never see with selinux=0 and break the system? The relabel service was NOT started according to the screenshot. It was aborted. When you manage to fix the mnt-storate.mount problem, it will not start the relabel either. A condition for it to start will not be met and because this systemd stopped booting in emergency mode after root-pwd and systemctl default it finsihed starting interesting: mount /mnt/storage manually works after that exclude the mountpint in /etc/fstab results in normal boot and you have everytime mount the LVM manually you call this ready for endusers? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:44:36 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: but it shows that the widely use of systemd is too soon because this crap has to say FAILED and not OK in this case! Apparently the httpd initscript returned with exit code 0. A service can fail after starting successfully. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:01:19 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 02:56, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:42:15 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: and why does it STOP the boot-process at a point no network is available? Mounts from /etc/fstab are considered required unless they are marked with the nofail option. why does it start the relabel service i never see with selinux=0 and break the system? The relabel service was NOT started according to the screenshot. It was aborted. When you manage to fix the mnt-storate.mount problem, it will not start the relabel either. A condition for it to start will not be met and because this systemd stopped booting in emergency mode after root-pwd and systemctl default it finsihed starting Sorry, I am having trouble parsing this. Are you saying that the relabel service was started then? interesting: mount /mnt/storage manually works after that exclude the mountpint in /etc/fstab results in normal boot and you have everytime mount the LVM manually Have you looked at the bug I linked to? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 Is it relevant for your situation? Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
Am 13.06.2011 03:26, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:01:19 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.06.2011 02:56, schrieb Michal Schmidt: interesting: mount /mnt/storage manually works after that exclude the mountpint in /etc/fstab results in normal boot and you have everytime mount the LVM manually Have you looked at the bug I linked to? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 Is it relevant for your situation? Jesus christ - yes this can be the reason can not try now because the machine is building F15-RPMs for some hours now THAN YKOU i will review all /etc/fstab-configurations in a hurry one reason more to switch not to sytsemd while upgarding and get the needed test-user-base with new installations, so they deal easier with systemd while existing users are not forced to troubles really - i love the idea of sytemd but not the way it is introduced for existing users with perfectly working systems and since i am developer as my amin-job a know really that it is impossible to replace complex things without mistakes and that is why i would never force a update this way signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: Have you looked at the bug I linked to? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709681 Is it relevant for your situation? Having a quick look at the link and at the steps to reproduce the bug gave me shivers. Are we really sure that systemd is ready? I mean, I don't even call my code alpha if it can't parse a slash correctly. Did we hurry too much to serve this plate to end users? Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
