On 8/12/12 6:10 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
The gods heard your call, and have replied:
Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely.
-- Lennart [1]
[1] http://lists.fre
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> equery f udev | grep udevd
>
> /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
>
>
> And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is
> just one of the little things that makes life more exciting for us.
>
> Can we please add some sanity
On 08/09/2012 12:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
>>> the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
>>>
On 08/09/2012 12:20 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
someone's liking?
No, we are discussing about an upstream merging two unr
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Forking udev hadn't been considered mostly just on that premise.
>
> So someone should just *finally* fork it, rather than talking about it
> all the time.
>
++
If the sky actually
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
> > the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
> > someone's liking?
>
> No, we are discussing about
On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
> the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
> someone's liking?
No, we are discussing about an upstream merging two unrelated projects
assuring users that nothin
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:48:38 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Yes, and please remove all the occurrences of 'GNU' because I don't
> > like it.
>
> We have people working on a clang/freebsd gentoo, you might help them
> and use that. It sort of works fin
On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes, and please remove all the occurrences of 'GNU' because I don't
> like it.
We have people working on a clang/freebsd gentoo, you might help them
and use that. It sort of works fine.
For a project Flameeyes replaced most of system using smaller
alt
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> So, I ask again. You keep complaining about "insanity". What's the
> insanity and why should we go to all of the extra effort you want us to
> go to to avoid it?
I think it's more of a knee-jerk reaction to this: Redhat is pushing
systemd ve
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:35:22 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> >
> > Still misses the point. USE flags were invented to deal with these
> > options. On a default install, which uses OpenRC, users shouldn't have
> > to then emerge
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:37:42AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > That doesn't work anymore - "improvement" in udev-186:
> >
> > equery f udev | grep udevd
> >
> > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
> >
> >
> > And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is
> > just one of the
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:13:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:25 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> > > can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and
> > > binary names again?
> > > Just because up
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Path to bash can't change because it will break most of scripts
> in the world.
>
> Path to libc can't change because it will break all of the executables
> in the world.
My point was illustrative. Basically if we're going to move
something,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:48:20 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>> > Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
>> > bash-completion. What is your point?
>>
>> I'm not
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:48:20 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
> > bash-completion. What is your point?
>
> I'm not saying I agree with the removal of bash-completion flag (that
>
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:25 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
> > can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and
> > binary names again?
> > Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have
> > to do it.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and binary
> names again?
> Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have to
> do it.
I think that having binaries going in different places based on a USE
fl
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:48:58 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny
> > wrote:
> >> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> >> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >>
> >> $
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and binary
> names again?
> Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have to
> do it.
>
> Right now it's really frustrating to have systemd artifacts all over m
On N, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> > better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >
> > $ install-mask -a systemd
> >
> > which will add just the
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
> bash-completion. What is your point?
I'm not saying I agree with the removal of bash-completion flag (that
discussion is for elsewhere), but just that your analogy doesn't hold.
zx2c4@
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
>> was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
>> our decision.
>>
>> Similarly, bash-c
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:38:07 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
> > was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
> > our decision.
> >
> > Simila
On 08/08/12 22:35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
>> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
>>
>> $ install-mask -a systemd
>>
>> which will add just the right path.
> Still
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:35:22 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> > better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >
> > $ install-mask -a systemd
> >
> > which will add j
On 08/08/2012 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
>> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing
>> them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
> was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
> our decision.
>
> Similarly, bash-completion flag will be gone at some point.
Everyone has bash. Not
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:20:55 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
> >
> > And live happy to the day you notice your system no longer boots.
>
> This is a nice bandaid, and sure, it "solves" the immediate issue
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
>
> $ install-mask -a systemd
>
> which will add just the right path.
Still misses the point. USE flags were invented to deal wit
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:22:47 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
>
> As an unrelated side note, in case any one on the internet finds this
> thread trying to "solve" this issue, it's worth pointing out that
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is
> just one of the little things that makes life more exciting for us.
>
> Can we please add some sanity back?
Exactly. Right now, with no USE flag, and no differentiation,
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:31:40 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
> > "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are
> > installing them?! But I don't even use systemd.
On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing
> them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this cruft on my
> system.
>
> Proposal: global USE flag fo
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
As an unrelated side note, in case any one on the internet finds this
thread trying to "solve" this issue, it's worth pointing out that
since udev now installs that directory, the INSTALL_MASK should
actually be /
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
>
> And live happy to the day you notice your system no longer boots.
This is a nice bandaid, and sure, it "solves" the immediate issue...
but it doesn't actually solve the actual issue: when packages
optionally i
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I couldn't find any
> definitive decisions on it, so I thought I'd mention things in a
> fairly simple manner:
>
> Step 1: I use OpenRC/sysvinit.
>
> Dell ~ # readlink -f /proc/1/exe
>
Hi,
Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I couldn't find any
definitive decisions on it, so I thought I'd mention things in a
fairly simple manner:
Step 1: I use OpenRC/sysvinit.
Dell ~ # readlink -f /proc/1/exe
/sbin/init
Dell ~ # equery b /sbin/init
* Searching for /sbin/init ...
sy
38 matches
Mail list logo
