On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Olav Vitters schrieb:
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464944
> > That bugreport is regarding an optional dependency for the power
> > handling. It is correct that Ubuntu will switch from ConsoleKit to
> > l
Olav Vitters schrieb:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464944
> That bugreport is regarding an optional dependency for the power
> handling. It is correct that Ubuntu will switch from ConsoleKit to
> logind, so it does make sense to either maintain ConsoleKit or use
> logind. But it still
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Olav Vitters schrieb:
> >> And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
> >> hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
> >> replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as
Olav Vitters schrieb:
>> And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
>> hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
>> replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as you may think (and is the
>> thing I started to work on anyway).
> I'm not aware of G
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
> hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
> replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as you may think (and is the
> thing I started t
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 04:08:17PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 15:41 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> > Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> > currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> > features that systemd is alr
El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 20:28 -0500, Matthew Thode escribió:
> On 05/15/13 19:27, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:16:01PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> We don't control upstreams, but we still have choices. At this point I
> >> only see Gnome and udev upstreams who are forcin
On 05/15/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> ... GNOME ...
>>
>> And given that the end-plan according to the guys is to kill the
>> distributions shall we just close Gentoo now?
>
>
On 05/15/2013 08:41 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing
On 05/15/13 20:20, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:18:13PM -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote
>>> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
>>> currently writing and maintaining drop-in
On 05/15/13 19:27, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:16:01PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> We don't control upstreams, but we still have choices. At this point I
>> only see Gnome and udev upstreams who are forcing their users to use
>> systemd. (There may be other projects too that
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:18:13PM -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote
> > Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> > currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> > features that syst
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:56:21PM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
> > kernel
> And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at al
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:16:01PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> We don't control upstreams, but we still have choices. At this point I
> only see Gnome and udev upstreams who are forcing their users to use
> systemd. (There may be other projects too that I'm not aware of.)
Udev doesn't force anyth
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:38:14PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> It will probably be more than a decade before anybody is FORCED to run
> systemd on Gentoo. You don't even have to run udev on Gentoo.
>
> It will probably be years before the default even changes, assuming
> the trajectory of system
On 05/15/13 16:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:56:21 +0200
> Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>> On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
>>> kernel
>
>> And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at all.
>
> Wh
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM, wrote:
> Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun
> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a
> part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants
> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll swit
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:56:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
> > kernel
>
> And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at all.
Why not?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
> kernel
And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at all.
- --
Alexander
alexan...@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PG
El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 15:02 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
[...]
> No comment on that...
>
> Maybe another way of saying things is that really the onus is on those
> who want others to change their behavior to explain why they should
> change. So, if you're seeking a change in behavior be up-fr
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> In any case, there really isn't any "decision" to make here.
>
> Then for what purpose is this discussion still going on?
>
No comment on that...
Maybe another way of saying thing
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman
> wrote:
> Don't take it personally or as an attack on systemd. I think he was
> just pointing out that there are many use cases where systemd may not
> be appropriate.
In discussions, I try
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > ... GNOME ...
>
> And given that the end-plan according to the guys is to kill the
> distributions shall we just close Gentoo now?
Let's not exaggerate things, there are a ton of other DE
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> - those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)
>
> Did you test this? Are there more specific details regarding this?
> Which version don't work? Is it known why?
>
>> - tho
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> - those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)
Did you test this? Are there more specific details regarding this?
Which version don't work? Is it known why?
> - those not using a recent linux kernel
It works on all gentoo-sources
On 05/15/2013 05:03 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
>> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
>> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintai
On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/05/13 10:16 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 May 2013 21:41, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea
>> is to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate
>> logind ebuild), it mea
On 15 May 2013 21:41, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing
El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 15:41 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd wa
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> unless the eudev team is going
Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
developers (Pacho?) had to write in
I'll start answering from the last point since it explains
the remaining answers. Sorry for the shuffle.
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41:27 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
>
> In the end init
On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
What if openrc/upstart/runit devs start harassing upstream in the same way?
Strategically is great, but isn't exactly something nice to do.
Probably people caring about alternatives s
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But
> here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there
> before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug
> upstream about it first.
On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:09:32 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser
> wrote:
> > The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> > and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream
> > [1] Therefore I'd require an up
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream [1]
> Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add.
Makes sense, though I wouldn
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:37:51 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Bottom line is that none of this should really be inconveniencing
> maintainers much - nobody is required to create unit files. However,
> if a friendly user submits a bug with one attached, then the
> maintainer should strongly consider ad
El jue, 09-05-2013 a las 18:44 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> A similar variant is implemented in app-portage/install-mask which maps
> names obtained from ${FILESDIR} to paths.
>
Didn't know that utility :O, thanks! (maybe, at least, a blog entry
could have been added when you did this to
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We should probably consider extending the INSTALL_MASK a bit. A good
> idea would be to allow repositories to pre-define names
> for INSTALL_MASK (alike USE flags) and allow portage to control them
> over those names.
We'd need a correspondin
On Thu, 09 May 2013 05:56:42 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 10:01 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
> > "Walter Dnes" wrote:
> >
> >>Wouldn't the "systemd" USE flag be the appropriate one to key on?
> >> The description in /usr/portage/profiles
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
>
>> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
>> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
>> that is for the small number of p
On 05/08/2013 10:01 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
Wouldn't the "systemd" USE flag be the appropriate one to key on?
The description in /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc says...
systemd - Enable use of systemd-specific libraries and features l
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
>
>> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
>> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
>> that is for the small number of pe
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
> that is for the small number of people who share your vitriol for the
> systemd project.
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> Wouldn't the "systemd" USE flag be the appropriate one to key on?
> The description in /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc says...
>
> systemd - Enable use of systemd-specific libraries and features like
> socket activation or session trackin
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote
> And I believe the council has only spoken out against using a useflag
> for installing such files. Afaik they haven't spoken out against a
> systemd-units package. Please refer me to their decision if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't the "system
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:21:53AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> > wrote:
> >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
> >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some
El mié, 08-05-2013 a las 23:49 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
> It sounds more wrong to me to be asking normal package maintainers to
> test and maintain unit files, while they don't use systemd themselves,
> nor have it installed. Nor would most of our users need this.
>
> And I believe the
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> >>> m
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
> removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
> file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
>
> That would be one insanely hot package.
Splittin
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
> > Ben de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> >
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs abou
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> > more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
> > new systemd units of the sort that maintainer
On Thu, 9 May 2013 00:21:53 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> > wrote:
> >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
> >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some consen
On 8 May 2013 21:51, Ben de Groot wrote:
[...]
> Where upstreams ship systemd units, I don't think there is any issue.
> The problem is you are asking Gentoo maintainers to add unit files
> that upstream is not shipping. In this case we should test and
> maintain these ourselves, which is an addit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
> would think it is better to add th
Mike Gilbert schrieb:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
>>> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
>>> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
>> Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/05/13 12:06 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot
> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds really wrong (tm) to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/05/13 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
>> wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the eff
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while ther
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
>> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
>> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
>
> Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman".
>
>> Let's be serious here
Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman".
> Let's be serious here.
I assure you that I am fully serious.
>> Another option would be to add a "
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessib
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessibl
On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>> new systemd unit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>> new sys
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>>
Ben de Groot schrieb:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
>> In this ca
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks
On 05/04/2013 03:05 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Long story short, we should:
> 1) give up with cross compiler support in genkernel, which has been
> anyway in a broken state for ages. Nobody is using it anyway.
> 2) make possible to optionally use udev in the initramfs (compiling
> just for it is
On 05/04/2013 03:12 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I just forgot the tricky part.
> If future lvm versions are going to use udev more extensively (for eg:
> storing more critical metadata in it), the net result will be that
> mdev won't work anymore. This is why I wrote that lvm is working "by
> mira
El sáb, 04-05-2013 a las 15:05 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
[...]
> >> - networkmanager need not to install/remove files depending on
> >> USE=systemd but rather detect systemd at runtime, which is a 3 lines
> >> script.
> >
> > Sounds sensible.
>
> Also, I forgot that I wrote a NetworkManager
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
> Scenario:
> - you have an initramfs with mdev, your pivot_chroot system runs udev.
> - you have a LVM volume group, containing the lvm volume for / and
> /home, and perhaps you also have swap on another volume.
> - you boot using the curre
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> PLEASE DO NOT START A FLAME WAR AND READ ON FIRST.
>> THIS IS NOT A POST AGAINST OPENRC.
>
> Amen
>
>> With the release of Sabayon 13.04 [1] and thanks to the efforts I put
>> into the systemd-
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Hopefully we might have a gsoc student volunteering to make a
> runscript/lsb-script/systemd-unit compiler and a small abstraction so we
> write a single init.d script and generate what's needed.
> Probably we might even support pure-runit that
On 05/01/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> PLEASE DO NOT START A FLAME WAR AND READ ON FIRST.
> THIS IS NOT A POST AGAINST OPENRC.
Amen
> With the release of Sabayon 13.04 [1] and thanks to the efforts I put
> into the systemd-love overlay [2], systemd has become much more
> accessible and
William Hubbs schrieb:
> If you use this symlink approach to actually switch your init to point
> to systemd, then you boot and things don't work, you are hosed.
Well, not fully hosed. You could still edit your kernel command line from
the boot loader pointing init=.. to the actual location and
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:27:36AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If it's that simple, why on earth do we have all the eselect modules we
> > have!?
> >
> >
> Hm, upon reading that list and seeing what they do, it raises another
> argument i
On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>
> If it's that simple, why on earth do we have all the eselect modules we
> have!?
>
>
Hm, upon reading that list and seeing what they do, it raises another
argument in favour of eselect:
If there needs to be more things changed prior to reboot tha
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:39:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>
> >> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
> >> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
> >>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
>> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
>>
>> If you use grub-mkconfig to generate a configuration file, you can
>>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Not all the Gentoo users are as skilled as you (a developer). Having a
> programmatic, bootloader agnostic way to swap /sbin/init is useful for
> the reasons I explained. Yet I haven't read any solid reason not to do
> that.
Well, there is
Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
> Not all the Gentoo users are as skilled as you (a developer). Having a
> programmatic, bootloader agnostic way to swap /sbin/init is useful for
> the reasons I explained. Yet I haven't read any solid reason not to do
> that.
Another bootloader agnostic way is to pass ini
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
>
> If you use grub-mkconfig to generate a configuration file, you can
> append the init option by setting
> GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="init=/us
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:26:06PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> bootloader configuration under grub1 for instance, was quite
>> straight-forward. Now with grub-2, its quite convoluted, for me at least.
>
> I haven't looked at grub2 yet, but I
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:26:06PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> - its a consistent approach that is bootloader agnostic
> - it doesn't require you to understand your bootloaders scripting system to
> add it to the init= line
> - its "no brains required, and hard to mess up"
Why should we do somet
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Against, the symlink may introduce parts that are breakable, like if user
> messes up and places the destination of the symlink on a different partition
> ( shouldn't be a problem, but might be ), or if you're doing an initird that
On 2 May 2013 15:18, William Hubbs wrote:
> Like I've already said too, I don't see that we need to do this change.
>
> Systemd is called /usr/lib/systemd/systemd (it should be
> /lib/systemd/systemd), and sysvinit is called /sbin/init,, so I don't
> see the need for moving init around and creati
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:14:28PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> wrote:
> > On 5/1/13 3:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >
> > As far as I read the bug, Mike (vapier) is doing the right thing.
> > Distros doing lots of custom changes can only
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:13:54PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 13:00 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> [...]
> > >> The only remaining problem is about eselect-sysvinit, for this reason,
> > >> I am probably going to create a new separate pkg called
> > >> _sysvinit-next_,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Steven, I think you can behave a lot better on the internet. kthx.
Amazing. I came to the exact opposite conclusion.
Fabio, I think you're doing awesome work!
Steven, I think you can behave a lot better on the internet. kthx.
Steven J. Long wrote:
> > It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> > more accessible,
>
> Sure there is: there's also consensus that this approach is wrong
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> On 5/1/13 3:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
> As far as I read the bug, Mike (vapier) is doing the right thing.
> Distros doing lots of custom changes can only add more chaos to the picture.
We are a distribution, we have our own goals,
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:52:09 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 5/1/13 3:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > It is sad to say that the "territoriality" in base-system (and
> > toolchain) is not allowing any kind of progress [3] [4]. This is
> > nothing new, by the way.
> >
> > [4] "useless cr
On 5/1/13 3:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It is sad to say that the "territoriality" in base-system (and
> toolchain) is not allowing any kind of progress [3] [4]. This is
> nothing new, by the way.
>
> [4] "useless crap": https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399615
As far as I read the bug,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> - genkernel needs to migrate to *udev (or as I did, provide a --udev
> genkernel option), mdev is unable to properly activate LVM volumes and
> LVM is actually working by miracle with openrc. Alternatively, we
> should migrate to dracut.
I'
There is no tracker yet. But it may be very well materialize at some point.
--
Fabio Erculiani
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
