Apoligies for the finger trouble - I hit send instead of cancel.
On Wed, 6 May 2015, Jim Jackson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Anto wrote:
> > On 05/05/15 16:05, David Hare wrote:
> > >
> > > > The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
> > > > is the main reason to fo
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Anto wrote:
> On 05/05/15 16:05, David Hare wrote:
> >
> > > The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
> > > is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place.
> >
> > Not exactly.. The reason is Debian's decision to *require* systemd with the
> > only
Isaac Dunham escribió:
Level 1:
If someone wants to use the dependency resolution that systemd has,
they need to have a configuration file for the software that specifies
how to start it and what needs to happen first.
[...]
I read Noel's comments as being in favor of leaving whatever is at
in
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > So why should we waste man-power on allowing to use systemd in a
> > distribution whose first aim and motivation is to provide a
> > systemd-free GNU/Linux?!?!?
>
> Nor should we waste manpower making it extra difficul
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:12:46PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 05:34:19PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> > >I meant "we should live with the fact that systemd is not unpluggable"
> > >:)
> >
> > Nicely put. But do you draw any implication from that vis-a-vis
> >
On 05/06/2015 01:16 AM, Jude Nelson wrote:
I think the plan is to address needless dependencies and lock-in in a
more general way, via the constitution
(https://git.devuan.org/devuan/devuan-project/wikis/DevuanConstitution).
Sections 2.2 and 9.10 are meant to alleviate this problem--not just
f
Hi Jaret,
> It would probably help to have some ground rules on how Devuan handles
> packages which provide systemd support. I know Devuan says "Nope!" when it
> comes to anything that would introduce systemd/init system dependencies,
> but does it ever get more elaborate than that? If it is alr
On 05/05/2015 12:35 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:49:34AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Hi Noel,
Having any systemd-equipped Devuan packages means that I need to always
be on my guard to prevent systemd from sneaking in.
Could segregate the packages by putting them in another c
On 05/05/2015 05:36 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Or, migrating to BSD.
I installed it over the weekend just 'cause. I'd be using it now, too,
if it had write support for ext4. (I kinda want my 3TB home partition
to be usable.)
And I find it very hilarious that BSD has gnome 3.14 that seems to
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 08:44:22PM +0200, Anto wrote:
>
> On 05/05/15 18:52, Noel Torres wrote:
> >
> >As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
> >distribution, and will always be. But if you want a system designed to be
> >unable to run systemd, please leave us. This is not
On Tue, 05 May 2015 17:34:19 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Nicely put. But do you draw any implication from that vis-a-vis
> supporting systemd in Devuan? (I certainly do :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Miles
*I* certainly do. Why in the world would we make Devuan development and
packaging one bit har
On 06/05/15 00:04, Isaac Dunham wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Before we get too deeply into this whole thing, what was the original
question? What exact thing are we arguing whether or not to include in
Devuan?
Whether or not we need to rebuild packages th
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 05:34:19PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[cut]
> >I meant "we should live with the fact that systemd is not unpluggable"
> >:)
>
> Nicely put. But do you draw any implication from that vis-a-vis
> supporting systemd in Devuan? (I certainly do :-)
>
If it was up to me (
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Before we get too deeply into this whole thing, what was the original
> question? What exact thing are we arguing whether or not to include in
> Devuan?
Whether or not we need to rebuild packages that have .service files so
they will no
On 05/05/15 21:41, Noel Torres wrote:
Anto escribió:
On 05/05/15 18:52, Noel Torres wrote:
As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
distribution, and will always be. But if you want a system designed
to be unable to run systemd, please leave us. This is not the pla
Harald Arnesen wrote:
Noel Torres [2015-05-05 18:52]:
As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
distribution, and will always be.
At the moment, it is either Trios or Funtoo or Slackware, right? Or some
limited distro like Alpine (which I run on my netbook).
I believe Ge
KatolaZ wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 03:53:55PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[cut]
Unfortunately, systemd has been *designed* to be unpluggable, and to
munch as much as possible of the low-level userspace. We should live
with it, especially because the typical answer you get about systemd
co
Noel Torres [2015-05-05 18:52]:
> As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
> distribution, and will always be.
At the moment, it is either Trios or Funtoo or Slackware, right? Or some
limited distro like Alpine (which I run on my netbook).
--
Hilsen Harald
___
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 03:53:55PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[cut]
> >Unfortunately, systemd has been *designed* to be unpluggable, and to
> >munch as much as possible of the low-level userspace. We should live
> >with it, especially because the typical answer you get about systemd
> >compatib
KatolaZ wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 07:33:32PM +, Noel Torres wrote:
[cut]
Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I follow Lennon on this. I Imagine a world
where systemd is optional (probably against its own core developers
wishes), and can be installed or deinstalled as any other init
system.
Wel
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 07:33:32PM +, Noel Torres wrote:
[cut]
>
> Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I follow Lennon on this. I Imagine a world
> where systemd is optional (probably against its own core developers
> wishes), and can be installed or deinstalled as any other init
> system.
>
Well, yo
Anto escribió:
On 05/05/15 18:52, Noel Torres wrote:
As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
distribution, and will always be. But if you want a system designed
to be unable to run systemd, please leave us. This is not the place
for such an anti-freedom POV.
Jaromil escribió:
dear Noel,
I'm happy that you are back, we really miss DWN, but I'm also sorry to
contradict you on this one.
I like you contradicting me. Maybe it is not so big contradiction.
About DWN, I've had bad days in the personal (and I'm still having) so
maybe writing to the
On 05/05/15 18:52, Noel Torres wrote:
As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
distribution, and will always be. But if you want a system designed to
be unable to run systemd, please leave us. This is not the place for
such an anti-freedom POV.
Are you for real?
D
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:41 PM, shraptor shraptor
wrote:
> But I guess there is no obstacle to for instance run vdev with systemd,
> huh?
>
There shouldn't be. However, someone will have to write a .service file
for it.
-Jude
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jaromil wrote:
>
>>
>> dear N
But I guess there is no obstacle to for instance run vdev with systemd, huh?
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jaromil wrote:
>
> dear Noel,
>
> I'm happy that you are back, we really miss DWN, but I'm also sorry to
> contradict you on this one.
>
> On Tue, 05 May 2015, Noel Torres wrote:
> > As a
dear Noel,
I'm happy that you are back, we really miss DWN, but I'm also sorry to
contradict you on this one.
On Tue, 05 May 2015, Noel Torres wrote:
> As a resume: If you want a systemd-free system, Devuan is your
> distribution, and will always be. But if you want a system designed to
> be una
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:52:44PM +, Noel Torres wrote:
[cut]
>
> Because it is so intrincately depended on by the core of a Debian
> system that we can not simply "get Debian and remove the systemd
> bits". We owe our users a truly systemd-free system, and that's why
> we are here, but we
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:35:57PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:49:34AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > Hi Noel,
> >
> > Having any systemd-equipped Devuan packages means that I need to always
> > be on my guard to prevent systemd from sneaking in.
>
> Could segregate
Steve Litt escribió:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:50:13 +0200
Anto wrote:
In my view, the decision to use systemd as the default init of Debian
forces the locked-in of massive number of packages into systemd. That
is the main problem which leads to the birth of Devuan. They then
provide workaroun
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:49:34AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Hi Noel,
>
> Having any systemd-equipped Devuan packages means that I need to always
> be on my guard to prevent systemd from sneaking in.
Could segregate the packages by putting them in another category, so
we'd have free, contrib
On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:50:13 +0200
Anto wrote:
> In my view, the decision to use systemd as the default init of Debian
> forces the locked-in of massive number of packages into systemd. That
> is the main problem which leads to the birth of Devuan. They then
> provide workarounds for people who
On Tue, 5 May 2015 16:40:55 +0200
Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
> At any rate, Devuan's distinguishing factor, as Noel has correctly
> pointed out, is that freedom of choice is promoted. So that people
> can continue to mix and match components as they see fit. Therefore,
> (at least from my POV), th
On 05/05/15 16:53, Tilmann Hentze wrote:
dpkg -S /lib/systemd /etc/systemd
Thanks Tilmann,
I tried that command as well, though I usually use --search.
But I actually just found it, with "find" command (Doh!)
anto@d945gclf:~/packages/cron-3.0pl1-devuan$ find . -name "cron.service"
./debian
On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:00:31 +
Noel Torres wrote:
>
> Anto escribió:
> [...]
> > Hello Noel,
> >
> > I think I have a good reason to want to have them removed. I hate
> > them :)
>
> You are free to do so.
> >
> > I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
> > sho
On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:31:45 +0200
Anto wrote:
>
>
> On 05/05/15 13:48, Noel Torres wrote:
> >
> > Didier Kryn escribió:
> >
> > [...]
> >> I bet every service daemon package would now provide
> >> a .service file, just like everyone used to provide an init
> >> script. As far as I underst
On 2015-05-05, Anto wrote:
> Which package actually generates all of the files and directories under
> /lib/systemd and /etc/systemd if not the packages themselves, like cron
> on the example above?
dpkg -S /lib/systemd /etc/systemd
___
Dng mailing
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:31:45PM +0200, Anto wrote:
>
> I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
> should it? The decision in Debian to default the init system to
> systemd is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place. And
> the users who want systemd are better
Please Guys, my answer to Anto was purely technical but it
triggered a philosophical discussion which happened already several
times. Could we stop the thread please? Maybe this discussion may happen
later, when we are all happy with our working devuan system.
Didier
Le 05/05/2015 16:
On 05/05/15 16:05, David Hare wrote:
The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place.
Not exactly.. The reason is Debian's decision to *require* systemd
with the only alternative a crippled OS. What is "default" matters less
On 2015-05-05 11:34, Anto wrote:
On 05/05/15 16:00, Noel Torres wrote:
Anto escribió:
[...]
Hello Noel,
I think I have a good reason to want to have them removed. I hate
them :)
You are free to do so.
I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
should it? The dec
Unlurking here for a moment...
> Am 05.05.2015 um 16:05 schrieb David Hare :
>
>
>> The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
>> is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place.
>
> Not exactly.. The reason is Debian's decision to *require* systemd with the
> only altern
On 2015-05-05 11:34, Anto wrote:
On 05/05/15 16:00, Noel Torres wrote:
Anto escribió:
[...]
Hello Noel,
I think I have a good reason to want to have them removed. I hate
them :)
You are free to do so.
I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
should it? The dec
On 05/05/15 16:00, Noel Torres wrote:
Anto escribió:
[...]
Hello Noel,
I think I have a good reason to want to have them removed. I hate
them :)
You are free to do so.
I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
should it? The decision in Debian to default the i
The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place.
Not exactly.. The reason is Debian's decision to *require* systemd with
the only alternative a crippled OS. What is "default" matters less..
D
Anto escribió:
[...]
Hello Noel,
I think I have a good reason to want to have them removed. I hate them :)
You are free to do so.
I don't think Devuan should provide the option to use systemd. Why
should it? The decision in Debian to default the init system to
systemd is the main reaso
On 05/05/15 13:48, Noel Torres wrote:
Didier Kryn escribió:
[...]
I bet every service daemon package would now provide a .service
file, just like everyone used to provide an init script. As far as I
understand, the .service files are the systemd counterpart of
sysvinit scripts. I imag
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 13:15 +0100, David Hare wrote:
> On 05/05/15 12:48, Noel Torres wrote:
> >
> > Didier Kryn escribió:
> >
> > Please remember that our objective is not to forbid nor impede usage of
> > systemd. A Devuan user might quite well **CHOOSE** to use systemd (well,
> > not for the f
On 05/05/15 13:29, David Hare wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:57, Anto wrote:
I pinned *systemd* packages into Pin-Priority: -1, and re-compiled cron
package without anything related to systemd. But there is still
/lib/systemd/system/cron.service file as we can see below.
Which package actually gene
On 05/05/15 12:48, Noel Torres wrote:
Didier Kryn escribió:
[...]
I bet every service daemon package would now provide a .service
file, just like everyone used to provide an init script. As far as I
understand, the .service files are the systemd counterpart of sysvinit
scripts. I imagine
Didier Kryn escribió:
[...]
I bet every service daemon package would now provide a .service
file, just like everyone used to provide an init script. As far as I
understand, the .service files are the systemd counterpart of
sysvinit scripts. I imagine it is just enough to remove the fi
Le 05/05/2015 12:57, Anto a écrit :
Hello Everybody,
I pinned *systemd* packages into Pin-Priority: -1, and re-compiled
cron package without anything related to systemd. But there is still
/lib/systemd/system/cron.service file as we can see below.
anto@d945gclf:~/packages/cron-3.0pl1-devua
On 05/05/15 11:57, Anto wrote:
I pinned *systemd* packages into Pin-Priority: -1, and re-compiled cron
package without anything related to systemd. But there is still
/lib/systemd/system/cron.service file as we can see below.
Which package actually generates all of the files and directories u
Hello Everybody,
I pinned *systemd* packages into Pin-Priority: -1, and re-compiled cron
package without anything related to systemd. But there is still
/lib/systemd/system/cron.service file as we can see below.
anto@d945gclf:~/packages/cron-3.0pl1-devuan$ grep -R systemd *
debian/changelog:
54 matches
Mail list logo
