On 09/15/2011 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
EOL of Fedora 15 is more than 6 months, and shouldn't have a beta
release of systemd, if systemd enter in a early stage in Fedora 15 ,
should be upgradeable ... ( I think). So what is the point in have a
early stage of a software, if we don't update
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
On 09/14/2011 09:55 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to
the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to
On 09/14/2011 01:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to
the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to
upstart. That is insanely high bug rate for core code which is (or
should be) pretty simple.
Rahul was
On 09/14/2011 05:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote
I realize, but that was indeed part of the point of my reply - lets
avoid making up things (with or without hyperbole) - and best we can,
stick to facts and real issues.
You are ignoring the real issue. Since you don't seem to understand my
point
On 09/14/2011 11:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/14/2011 05:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote
I realize, but that was indeed part of the point of my reply - lets
avoid making up things (with or without hyperbole) - and best we can,
stick to facts and real issues.
You are ignoring the real
Am 13.09.2011 23:58, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 09/14/2011 02:59 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
So Fedora guys what you are waiting for ? update systemd please , should
I open a report in bugzilla ?
I can explain each of your examples but since systemd upstream developer
is also the Fedora
Am 14.09.2011 06:52, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
It is a small number of people repeating bringing up high risk and
frankly silly ideas like updating to a major new version of a core
component in a update without sufficient justification for taking that
risk
if fedora has a problem with updates
Am 14.09.2011 14:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And FYI to all those that gloriously want to upgrade and claim that it's
bug free or they ( all of what two people ) not encountered any issues
inetd-style socket activation is borked in .35 ( users need to downgrade
to .34 or add
On 09/14/2011 03:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
better position to judge is relative
Not really. Noone is in a better position to judge the impact of
updates more than the upstream developers who also maintain the
component in Fedora.
yes, updates may introduce new bugs / problems
but nobody
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:43 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
Also, I'd be curious if LP felt the risk was high or negligible - since
his thoughts should carry more weight on this topic.
I assume he would not think 5% of users would have un-bootable systems.
No developer ever thinks their change
On 09/14/2011 12:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:43 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
Also, I'd be curious if LP felt the risk was high or negligible - since
his thoughts should carry more weight on this topic.
I assume he would not think 5% of users would have
On 09/14/2011 12:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 14:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And FYI to all those that gloriously want to upgrade and claim that it's
bug free or they ( all of what two people ) not encountered any issues
inetd-style socket activation is borked in .35 (
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:48:48 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
When I had time to look at irc from $dayjob I noticed that I had been
ping and what awaits me was this...
abadger1999: He's on what could only be usefully termed a crusade.
It's actually
On 09/14/2011 10:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'd like to note that Toshio (abadger1999 on IRC) did in fact not say
this. It was someone else answering them.
Oh no he would never in fact Toshio has been one of the more helpful
person to me always and he is one of the person I look for inspiration
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 09:05 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
and force
a switch to systemd at the same time and then force the users to
upgrade again to F16 as soon as possible to get systemd updated
is simply the wrong way
I agree!
other piece of email :
And FYI to all those that gloriously
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 23:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.09.2011 21:41, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
thanks for this information , could I update systemd to systemd-35 in
Fedora 15 with rebuilding the src.rpm , I don't get in trouble ? or we
have some restrictions ?
I we don't have
On 09/14/2011 02:59 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
So Fedora guys what you are waiting for ? update systemd please , should
I open a report in bugzilla ?
I can explain each of your examples but since systemd upstream developer
is also the Fedora maintainer, I think he is in a better position to
Am 13.09.2011 21:41, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
thanks for this information , could I update systemd to systemd-35 in
Fedora 15 with rebuilding the src.rpm , I don't get in trouble ? or we
have some restrictions ?
I we don't have restriction why systemd Fedora packager don't update
them on
Am 13.09.2011 23:25, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 23:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.09.2011 21:41, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
thanks for this information , could I update systemd to systemd-35 in
Fedora 15 with rebuilding the src.rpm , I don't get in trouble ? or we
have
On 09/13/2011 05:58 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/14/2011 02:59 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
So Fedora guys what you are waiting for ? update systemd please , should
I open a report in bugzilla ?
I can explain each of your examples but since systemd upstream developer
is also the Fedora
On 09/14/2011 05:43 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not sure what your point is above .. The kernel has undergone more
updates than systemd ... all for very good reasons - making it better
and solving problems. Sure the same would apply to systemd. Don't the
updates look pretty sensible?
The same
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
The kernel has undergone more updates than systemd ... all for very
good reasons - making it better and solving problems. Sure the same
would apply to systemd.
We also go to some lengths to make sure that there is a
On 09/13/2011 08:34 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com
mailto:li...@sapience.com wrote:
The kernel has undergone more updates than systemd ... all for very
good reasons - making it better and solving problems. Sure the same
On 09/14/2011 06:47 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Good points - up to a point - but lets go slow and think for a few
minutes - unlike the kernel which is very hardware dependent and
therefore may run on many machines but not all, systemd is no - or
should not be for its core functionality. Its a
On 09/13/2011 09:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/14/2011 06:47 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Good points - up to a point - but lets go slow and think for a few
minutes - unlike the kernel which is very hardware dependent and
therefore may run on many machines but not all, systemd is no - or
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
On 09/14/2011 09:55 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to
the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to
upstart. That is insanely high bug rate for core code which is (or
On 09/14/2011 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Really? To my mind, systemd is still on trial ... and it's failing.
I think there's a significant probability we'll go to something else
in a release or three.
It is a small number of people repeating bringing up high risk and
frankly silly ideas like
27 matches
Mail list logo
