On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then
working together becomes quite
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top
priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a
wrapper such as our gcc one. I like better the latter since it is
overall safer.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500
Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not
providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd
integration and we were
On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:21 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not
providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd
integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I
On 26 May 2013 02:13, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then
working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to
On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
boycott attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.
Common sense would be to recognize that
Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then
working
On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo
maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such
files.
We did agree that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/2013 01:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell
dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages
not
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:15 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
boycott attitudes should stop in
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 09:22 +0200, Tiziano Müller escribió:
[...]
Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting
out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I
would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they
are not
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:18 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
boycott attitudes
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On the other hand, we
also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else
does the work for them.
Where is this policy documented?
Nowhere,
On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not
providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:23 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to
use systemd.
You are doing as you are forcing them to have a semi-usable setup when
merging packages.
You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 08:55 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is
generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s)
line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered
features.
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
that. Systemd upstream
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:52:28 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 01:57:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
It has to be done *VERY* early at boot, or else we're back to the
problem you described above.
Not sure what you mean with very early, you don't really have
On Sun, 26 May 2013 04:02:56 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
By take effect I mean that the filesystem should be modified in such
a way that the next boot will use what I selected. No further action
which could fail should be required beyond the eselect command.
Unless the eselect
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top
priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation
or a
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
Increased complexity is never safer. And a wrapper means the
additional complexity gets there every boot. And considering how
the discussion goes, the wrapper will grow openrc-size in a few
months..
I
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
It is *easy*.
ln -s /sbin/newinit /sbin/init.new
mv /sbin/init.new /sbin/init
Easy and atomic. The inconsistency potential is similar to one given
by init upgrades. Yet we don't do anything magical to defer init
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*.
Actually, a method similar to one used in oldnet would simply work.
That is, symlinking
On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top
priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a
wrapper such as our gcc one. I like
On 5/26/13 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro?
Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get
the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite?
eudev was made on purpose to let people avoid
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:21:25 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
Increased complexity is never safer. And a wrapper means the
additional complexity gets there every boot. And considering how
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Where is this policy documented?
Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
sense enough to me.
If it is to be
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Robert David
robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it
would be bad. The point is somewhere else. I really dont know how many
user will switch inits and how many of them will do this regularly.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that
hard*. Actually, a
Rich Freeman schrieb:
Granted, I don't know the limitations of the EFI bootloaders that are
out there, but this still seems like something better solved via grub
configuration. When I implemented systemd in one of my VMs I just
added a grub line to boot back to openrc.
EFI stub kernels just
On 5/26/13 9:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself
and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could
have. But the unit file format is, er, good enough -- and has
the advantage of eventually taking a lot of work
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which
It doesn't need to, it just needs to kick off the right init process.
If you think it does need to, please elaborate.
and worst case switch inittab.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top
priority) should be either a
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:45:38 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
It is *easy*.
ln -s /sbin/newinit /sbin/init.new
mv /sbin/init.new /sbin/init
Easy and atomic. The inconsistency potential is
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Init.d scripts are just shell scripts. All somebody needs to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:51 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 9:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself
and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could
have. But the unit file format
On 05/26/2013 12:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
That means that this whole thing only impacts those who
install it, which is the best way to implement something experimental
in the first place.
+1
I and probably a lot of other people have zero interest in this
approach, so we should not be
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:31:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot
On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
- /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default
On 5/26/13 1:31 PM, Robert David wrote:
Come on, it is 2013, wasting few inodes. I did not got these problems
in the old good times with my 386 with 4mb ram and few MB hdd.
Those with embedded system will mask many other files, not only
systemd units (so they save one inode more with my
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:09:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Easy isn't always good. It's not atomic since you can't reboot and
because of that I wouldn't call it smooth either.
Can't you? How come?
Because it expects the init system you boot with to be present.
I think
On 5/26/13 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
I'd suspect this is mostly with the growing irritation of systemd
haters who spawn endless threads about how they hate anything with
'systemd' name in it. Plus the people who try hard to port the mistakes
of OpenRC init scripts to systemd services files.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper
code. I can hardly even express this in words.
It doesn't need to be in the wrapper, inittab is something read at boot
only as far as I am aware and
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:45:43 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:09:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Easy isn't always good. It's not atomic since you can't reboot and
because of that I wouldn't call it smooth either.
Can't you? How come?
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:40:03 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper
code. I can hardly even express this in words.
I need it for my purpose, bb-init syntax isn't the same
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:01:19 +0200
Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why
it would be bad.
That's what I'd like to know from him, I was quoting both of you,
I really dont know how many user will switch inits and
On 5/26/13 2:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
You could've asked me that when I was still using OpenRC. I don't
really want to grep the 40 scripts right now, and I don't think I have
the worse cases installed here.
Worth investigation, not by you, but those that loathe systemd should
have a look
On Sat, May 25, 2013 21:55, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
How will the stop/start part of services/init-scripts/... be done?
Not sure what you mean here; if you keep init function the same as the
init you boot with, this should
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:55:20 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
+1 for wrapper, from my understanding, symlinks for init-systems
can't be altered on a running system without risking strange
behaviour.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:59:34 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
I'd suspect this is mostly with the growing irritation of systemd
haters who spawn endless threads about how they hate anything with
'systemd' name in it. Plus the people who
On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:59:28 +0200
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
As an example. Lets say I want to test a new init-system. [SNIP]
If I then, accidentally, type /etc/init.d/xyz start when xyz
hasn't been started by any means yet. What will happen?
I would assume that openrc will try
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:26 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Cc: tom...@gentoo.org
Please don't CC me, this causes duplicate mails; one of both does not
include reply-to. Nobody else that has responded to me did this before.
Unless you can give me an awesome procmail rule to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/05/13 03:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 05/25/13 05:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
- init gets effectively switched only at boot/reboot
Please not on reboot, because an unclean shutdown shouldn't leave
the system in limbo.
On 5/26/13 3:35 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:59:34 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
You need to name a unit with @ suffix, like openvpn@.service:
$ cat /etc/systemd/system/openvpn@.service
[Service]
Type=simple
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/openvpn
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:26 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Cc: tom...@gentoo.org
Please don't CC me, this causes duplicate mails; one of both does not
include reply-to. Nobody else that has responded to me
On 5/26/13 1:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper
code. I can hardly even express this in words.
It doesn't need to be in the wrapper, inittab is something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/05/13 07:40 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
You are telling me that a wrapper, a thing that gets executed
*every* boot needs to do some random magic to know which init
system was in use and which one is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/05/13 08:59 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 21:55, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200 J. Roeleveld
jo...@antarean.org wrote:
How will the stop/start part of services/init-scripts/... be
done?
Not sure
On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Where is this policy documented?
Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:52:27 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/26/13 1:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the
wrapper code. I can hardly even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/2013 11:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and
worst case switch inittab.
Please explain why this wrapper would need to switch inittab. Inittab is
only used by sysvinit and has no uses in any other init
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and
worst case switch inittab.
Please explain why this wrapper would need to switch inittab.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:48:30 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and
worst case
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file,
added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs?
Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat?
It would seem to
Am Sonntag, 26. Mai 2013, 18:15:46 schrieb Rick Zero_Chaos Farina:
Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file,
added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs?
Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat?
+1
--
Andreas K. Huettel
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 06:55:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:48:30 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Openrc is small, but
On 5/27/13 12:58 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
From what I just read, the difference is that busybox init ignores the
runlevels specified in sysvinit inittab.
Nope, it interprets the numbers in a different way.
If that's the only difference, do we really need to modify the inittab
at all?
Yes,
On 5/26/13 4:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/05/13 03:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 05/25/13 05:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
- init gets effectively switched only at boot/reboot
Please not on reboot, because an unclean
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-05-26 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-im/ktp-contact-applet 2013-05-21 18:29:14 johu
net-im/ktp-presence-applet 2013-05-21 18:30:43 johu
games-action/heavygear2
74 matches
Mail list logo