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 to
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 GNOME 3.8
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 you may
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 is
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
logind, so
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 forcing their
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 already
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 lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
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
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
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 was
On 15 May 2013 21:41, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
-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 lx...@gentoo.org 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
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
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 maintained
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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?
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
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
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org 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
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-front
-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 PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:56:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net 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
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 was
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
On 05/15/13 16:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:56:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net 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.
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 systemd
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
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 all.
I'm
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 systemd is
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 I'm
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 05/15/2013 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 05/15/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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 05/10/2013 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
On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:09:32 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream
[1]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:37:51 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org 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
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org 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,
On 05/08/2013 10:01 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org 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
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 tool
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are problems with
On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
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 dounit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making
-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 lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks
-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 yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Mike Gilbert schrieb:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 21:51, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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,
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are problems
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus
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 Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:21:53AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org
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 systemd
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
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, May 8, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
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
miracle
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 a
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 easy
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org 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
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
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 patch that
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 something
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org 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
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
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:39:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
convoluted
On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:27:36AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
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
El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 12:04 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
[...]
- other ~490 systemd units are missing at this time and writing them
could also be a great GSoC project (don't look at me, I'm busy
enough).
[...]
Can't them be stolen from other distros running systemd?
[...]
The only
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 12:04 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
[...]
- other ~490 systemd units are missing at this time and writing them
could also be a great GSoC project (don't look at me, I'm busy
enough).
[...]
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_, that contains all the fun stuff many developers were
not allowed to commit
On 05/01/13 05:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
PLEASE DO NOT START A FLAME WAR AND READ ON FIRST.
THIS IS NOT A POST AGAINST OPENRC.
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 easy to
There is no tracker yet. But it may be very well materialize at some point.
--
Fabio Erculiani
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
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, Mike
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:52:09 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org 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]
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org 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
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 for
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Steven, I think you can behave a lot better on the internet. kthx.
Amazing. I came to the exact opposite conclusion.
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_, that
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.
phajdan...@gentoo.org 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
On 2 May 2013 15:18, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org 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
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
