On 08/27/2013 12:59 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The GPL is in conflict with the law
Joerg, which law are you talking about? I've never understood the problems
surrounding the many and various available software licenses, and I don't
think I ever will understand them. But I'm still trying :)
On 08/30/2013 04:05 PM, walt wrote:
On 08/27/2013 12:59 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The GPL is in conflict with the law
Joerg, which law are you talking about?
Oops, I see you've already answered my question. Please ignore.
Am 19.08.2013 22:40, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
On 19/08/2013 16:20, Alecks Gates wrote:
All I do is add one extra line (for
example - dracut -H --kver=3.11.0-rc6) to my kernel install
procedure.
Precisely. It's not hard, it's actually almost automatable.
It's vastly simpler than configuring
On 20/08/2013 06:00, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 12:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive
On 20/08/2013 07:41, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, August 20, 2013 00:33, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:51:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with java
installers off onto some other team of luckless suckers, I was left
On 20/08/2013 07:38, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 22:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 19/08/2013 22:32, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was
designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+
years. Almost all
On Tue, August 20, 2013 07:58, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 20/08/2013 07:41, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, August 20, 2013 00:33, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:51:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with
java
installers off
On Tue, August 20, 2013 07:55, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 20/08/2013 06:00, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
I also still remember.
Not going to mention it now. But will give a hint.
What is the name of the computer that said: I'm sorry Dale, I can't let
you do that.?
bwahahahaha :-)
Yes, we all
On Tue, August 20, 2013 08:06, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 20/08/2013 07:38, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 22:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 19/08/2013 22:32, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was
designed for hardware and
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:12:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
I to have / on a traditional partition, ext4, and /boot on a small ext2
partition. Everything else is on LVM. I don't want a init thingy
either. I had nightmares with that thing when I used Mandrake years
ago. I can't recall the name of that
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:54:25 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
2001 was a good move and a good book too (just finished both again as
it turns out). 2010 doesn't quite match up though...
The book and movie were done at the same time, if I remember correctly.
There's also a book about how the
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:44:41 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
The kernel build system can also build the initramfs if you give it
the location of the config file. That way the initramfs is built for
each kernel, using the currently installed versions of the various
tools.
Yes, it's a
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:41:12 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
And those adding screen/tmux into the mix can become truly
unbearable...
When working remotely on a console, I always use screen. Been bitten too
often by dodgy links that it is a sane safety feature.
Same here. My .zshrc starts
On 2013-08-19 10:22 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't you make it work separately after 205? Because 205 is
a MAJOR VERSION BUMP on an actively developed program.
205 is a major version bump over ... 204?
Surely you jest?
On Tue, August 20, 2013 12:03, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:44:41 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
The kernel build system can also build the initramfs if you give it
the location of the config file. That way the initramfs is built for
each kernel, using the currently installed
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:21 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Not really, because make is intelligent enough to no bother
recompiling anything for which the source has not changed.
True, but why recompile the kernel just to redo the initramfs?
As mentioned, I don't update/recompile the kernel
On Tue, August 20, 2013 12:51, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 10:22 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't you make it work separately after 205? Because 205 is
a MAJOR VERSION BUMP on an actively developed program.
205 is a major version bump over ... 204?
Surely you
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:12:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
I to have / on a traditional partition, ext4, and /boot on a small ext2
partition. Everything else is on LVM. I don't want a init thingy
either. I had nightmares with that thing when I used Mandrake years
ago. I can't
On 20/08/2013 11:59, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:54:25 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
2001 was a good move and a good book too (just finished both again as
it turns out). 2010 doesn't quite match up though...
The book and movie were done at the same time, if I remember
On 2013-08-20 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:21 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Not really, because make is intelligent enough to no bother
recompiling anything for which the source has not changed.
True, but why recompile the kernel just to redo the
On 2013-08-19 4:54 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/08/2013 18:39, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
For your other question, you don't need an initramfs if your /usr is not
split off and drivers for your fs on / and
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:08:02 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
That depends on your needs. The reason I do it this way is so that the
initramfs is locked to the kernel. Once that kernel boots, it will
always boot because the initramfs cannot be changed. If I make a
change to the initramfs, that's a
On 20/08/2013 16:08, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-20 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:21 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Not really, because make is intelligent enough to no bother
recompiling anything for which the source has not changed.
True, but why
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:08:02 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
The main thing about this whole initramfs thing is, like Dale, I just
don't understand it. I understand grub and grub.conf. I understand
enough about compiling a kernel to be able to get it done and be
reasonably sure
On 20/08/2013 16:08, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 4:54 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/08/2013 18:39, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
For your other question, you don't need an initramfs if your /usr is
not
split
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:37:47 -0500, Dale wrote:
Do you see the pattern, your lack of understanding is not a failing of
the software? This is not a technological point, or even a political
one, it is about being outside of your comfort zone. Using Gentoo is
an exercise in expanding your
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:37:47 -0500, Dale wrote:
Do you see the pattern, your lack of understanding is not a failing of
the software? This is not a technological point, or even a political
one, it is about being outside of your comfort zone. Using Gentoo is
an exercise in
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:16:31 -0500, Dale wrote:
You missed my whole point. You can't claim it is because it is new and
outside my comfort zone because even tho grub2 was new to me, it was not
outside my comfort zone. Grub2 is very little like the old grub. It is
just plain outright new
On 19/08/2013 05:42, Daniel Campbell wrote:
As a budding programmer I understand that a lot of the functionality
that users take for granted in sysvinit scripts is hacked together and
prone to bash upgrades breaking them
sysvinit scripts have ended up where almost every large project that
On 08/19/2013 12:52 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only
On 2013-08-19 00:49, Dale wrote:
Picking random message sort of. Isn't eudev still going to support a
separate /usr? That is my understanding. If eudev is not then I may
have to reconsider some things myself here.
Yes, that is my understanding as well. But the decision to not support
a
pk wrote:
On 2013-08-19 00:49, Dale wrote:
Picking random message sort of. Isn't eudev still going to support a
separate /usr? That is my understanding. If eudev is not then I may
have to reconsider some things myself here.
Yes, that is my understanding as well. But the decision to not
On 19/08/2013 11:31, pk wrote:
On 2013-08-19 00:49, Dale wrote:
Picking random message sort of. Isn't eudev still going to support a
separate /usr? That is my understanding. If eudev is not then I may
have to reconsider some things myself here.
Yes, that is my understanding as well.
On 19 August 2013, at 10:31, pk wrote:
... The problem I have, as an engineer, is
that everybody says that a separate /usr is broken, that sysvinit is
broken without explaining why. In order to fix a problem you need to
know what is broken...
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/08/2013 11:31, pk wrote:
On 2013-08-19 00:49, Dale wrote:
Picking random message sort of. Isn't eudev still going to support a
separate /usr? That is my understanding. If eudev is not then I may
have to
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are aware
of that currently are not able to provide the full set of functionality
when /usr is split off and not pre-mounted at boot:
udev-pci-db/udev-usb-db and all rules
On 2013-08-19 08:35, Alan McKinnon wrote:
sysvinit, like X11, needs a massive overhaul and a sprint clean.
Yes, an overhaul is always welcome. But most people criticising these
systems (and other systems) just say that they are bad without pointing
out what is bad. How can you fix something
On 19/08/2013 14:13, pk wrote:
sysvinit, like X11, needs a massive overhaul and a sprint clean.
Yes, an overhaul is always welcome. But most people criticising these
systems (and other systems) just say that they are bad without pointing
out what is bad. How can you fix something without
On 2013-08-19 04:55, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Probably for exactly the same reason you or anyone else uses Gentoo;
USE flags, portage, you can customize at your hearts content...
USE flags, in my mind, are there for minimising dependencies so that I
don't need to install all the crap that
On 2013-08-19 6:04 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not that separate /usr is broken - it's not.
The issue is a separate /usr without an initramfs. And the issue ONLY
occurs at early-boot time.
And so, if this is the way it goes, this is the way it goes.
As long as I can
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's
decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an
initramfs; have you ever stopped to consider that, perhaps, that's the
best *technical*
On 19/08/13 18:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are aware
of that currently are not able to provide the full set of functionality
when /usr is split off and not pre-mounted at boot:
On 19/08/2013 15:23, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 6:04 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not that separate /usr is broken - it's not.
The issue is a separate /usr without an initramfs. And the issue ONLY
occurs at early-boot time.
And so, if this is the way it goes,
On 19/08/2013 15:36, William Kenworthy wrote:
I still have not seen an adequate explanation as to why systemd isn't a
profile as its far more intrusive than a gnome/kde choice and they have
profiles. That way some bad choices like polluting systems with systemd
files because they are only
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's
decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an
initramfs;
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates aleck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's
On 2013-08-19 12:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's not that separate /usr is broken - it's not.
I know.
The issue is a separate /usr without an initramfs. And the issue ONLY
occurs at early-boot time.
It is broken for *some* systems.
The problem is that with modern hardware much code that was
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates aleck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
And,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Alecks Gates aleck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates aleck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
On 08/19/2013 03:37 PM, Alecks Gates wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates aleck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
For me, I'm not opposed to merging /usr. I'm not opposed to other people
using systemd, I am opposed to*me* using it.
Agreed, and that is precisely the concern here...
For your other question, you don't need an initramfs if
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
I rather suspect that they are going after the cloud/VM market ...
having VM's boot quickly and simply along with no desire/need to fault
find and repair ... just rm it and spin up another instance.
Nothing to 'suspect'... they
On 19/08/13 at 09:36pm, William Kenworthy wrote:
So why not a profile so those guys who want to play can get a
configuration that better suits them? - and vice versa if the whole
systemd push dies and Redhat drops it as I doubt anyone else big enough
will pick it up (they have a foot in both
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:17 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-19 04:55, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Probably for exactly the same reason you or anyone else uses Gentoo;
USE flags, portage, you can customize at your hearts content...
USE flags, in my mind, are there for minimising
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
I rather suspect that they are going after the cloud/VM market ...
having VM's boot quickly and simply along with no desire/need to fault
find and
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's
decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an
initramfs;
On 2013-08-19 19:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
snipped a whole lot of bollocks
I'm beginning to think you are a troll since you consistently
misinterpret what I'm trying to say. This is the last thing I will say
in this matter: Your technical arguments are bogus. Yes, I agree that
my point is
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-19 19:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
snipped a whole lot of bollocks
I'm beginning to think you are a troll since you consistently
misinterpret what I'm trying to say. This is the last thing I will say
in this matter:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 12:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are aware
of that currently are not able to provide the full set of functionality
when /usr is split off and not pre-mounted at
On 19/08/2013 19:03, Yohan Pereira wrote:
On 19/08/13 at 09:36pm, William Kenworthy wrote:
So why not a profile so those guys who want to play can get a
configuration that better suits them? - and vice versa if the whole
systemd push dies and Redhat drops it as I doubt anyone else big enough
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/08/2013 14:13, pk wrote:
sysvinit, like X11, needs a massive overhaul and a sprint clean.
Yes, an overhaul is always welcome. But most people criticising these
systems (and other systems) just say that they are bad without
pointing
out what is
On 19/08/2013 16:20, Alecks Gates wrote:
Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated
about making an initramfs? At this point in time it's extremely
simple for me, but I only manage relatively simple systems (although
I'd like that to change soon). All I do is add one
On 19/08/2013 22:32, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was
designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+
years. Almost all factors that made X11 awesome in the 80s and 90s
simply are not there anymore.
X11 was still
On 19/08/2013 18:39, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
For me, I'm not opposed to merging /usr. I'm not opposed to other people
using systemd, I am opposed to*me* using it.
Agreed, and that is precisely the concern here...
For your other
On 19/08/2013 16:33, pk wrote:
Using an initramfs means you duplicate parts of your OS and copy them
into the kernel or using a tool (like dracut or genkernel). If you need
it from a technical point of view (bluetooth keyboard), that's fine but
if I don't have any hardware that requires it
On 19/08/13 22:20, Alecks Gates wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
...
Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated
about making an initramfs? At this point in time it's extremely
simple for me, but I only manage
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:30:16 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
The files within the initramfs generation tool are compiled using
different tool than portage, they are not updated when distribution is
updated, and they are not even at same version within portage tree.
It may be acceptable for
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:11:46 +0100, thegeezer wrote:
i almost would like to request tighter integration between
portage/kernel building/initrd
The kernel build system can also build the initramfs if you give it the
location of the config file. That way the initramfs is built for each
kernel,
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:51:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with java
installers off onto some other team of luckless suckers, I was left with
just the best remote interface ever - ssh and bash. So I can afford to
be smug :-)
Those
J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 12:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are aware
of that currently are not able to provide the full set of functionality
when /usr is split off
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote:
On 08/19/2013 12:52 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, August 19, 2013 12:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:17:06 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are
aware
of that currently are not able to provide the full set of
On Mon, August 19, 2013 23:24, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 19/08/2013 16:33, pk wrote:
Using an initramfs means you duplicate parts of your OS and copy them
into the kernel or using a tool (like dracut or genkernel). If you need
it from a technical point of view (bluetooth keyboard), that's fine
On Mon, August 19, 2013 22:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 19/08/2013 22:32, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was
designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+
years. Almost all factors that made X11 awesome in the 80s
On Tue, August 20, 2013 00:33, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:51:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with java
installers off onto some other team of luckless suckers, I was left with
just the best remote interface ever -
On Tue, August 20, 2013 00:20, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:11:46 +0100, thegeezer wrote:
i almost would like to request tighter integration between
portage/kernel building/initrd
The kernel build system can also build the initramfs if you give it the
location of the config
2013/8/18 Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com
I tend to agree. And I still wonder why it's called /usr merge if it
only affects /bin and /sbin. If it's really a merge, shouldn't /lib also
be affected?
Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article
2013/8/18 Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us
On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net
wrote:
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system
that doesn't legitimately
On 08/18/2013 03:53 AM, Alessio Ababilov wrote:
2013/8/18 Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us mailto:li...@sporkbox.us
On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder
andreas_e...@gmx.net mailto:andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote:
On
On 2013-08-18 11:44, Daniel Campbell wrote:
Systemd has a monolithic design, is headed by an egotist with no respect
for other developers, and cannibalizes other projects. The projects it
can't cannibalize will be strongarmed into irrelevance. Couple this with
Red Hat employees working on
On 2013-08-18 4:40 AM, Alessio Ababilov ilovegnuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/,
and so does my script.
And so the /usr merge is part and parcel of systemd.
On Sunday 18 Aug 2013 20:37:19 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-18 4:40 AM, Alessio Ababilov ilovegnuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/,
and so does my script.
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should
follow?
pk wrote:
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros
在 2013-8-19 上午5:55，pk pete...@coolmail.se写道：
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
RHL dictating what
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:54 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
RHL
On 08/18/2013 09:39 PM, microcai wrote:
在 2013-8-19 上午5:55，pk pete...@coolmail.se
mailto:pete...@coolmail.se写道：
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
RHL
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system
that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even
have /usr mounted separately, but there are many, many
different system configurations out there and Gentoo is famous
for supporting a
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote:
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system
that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even
have /usr mounted separately, but there are many, many
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:26:34PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote:
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system
that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, staticsafe m...@staticsafe.ca wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:26:34PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote:
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to
On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote:
On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote:
But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system
that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even
have /usr mounted
On 13/08/13 21:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Alessio Ababilov
ilovegnuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Hi Alessio.
I wrote a script that allows /usr merge in Gentoo without changes to
ebuilds.
I described it in an article
94 matches
Mail list logo
