In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one. Symlink management is
an overkill here. CK should be likewise very easy to detect. In absence of
both, NetworkManager should still work.
Pavel
- Original Message
Hi,
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
First, one thing that came up is a concern about a GCC hard dependency.
My understanding is that LLVM
From: Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org
Hi,
Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
to this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
First, one thing that came up
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Then why it wasn't good enough for Glib but is good enough for
NetworkManager? Why
See this thread:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2012-April/msg3.html
Basically, because the GTK+ stack needs to compile with MSVC.
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:19 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi,
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
First, one thing that came up is a concern
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
I don't oppose that.
Attached.
From c43e095419423b36544e221f9f0896d2579fb0a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:53:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Revert core: import libgsystem, use it
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
From: Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org
Hi,
Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
to this, because it's a very
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
I'm not yet even convinced about this because of total lack of documentation
to be
found right away.
What do you think about this patch? Does it help address your concerns?
Is there anything that could be clearer?
From
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
I don't consider this an experiment at this point.
Well, I do think Pavel has a point; it's true that NetworkManager is
an order of magnitude more code than any other project I've used it in
before, and it's larger in terms of people too.
At Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:19:57 -0400 (EDT),
Pavel Simerda wrote:
In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one. Symlink management is
an overkill here. CK should be likewise very easy to detect. In absence of
both,
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 15:02 -0400, Luke T.Shumaker wrote:
I propose that the build system should generage both
`NetworkManager-ck' and `NetworkManager-systemd' binaries and symlink
`NetworkManager' to one of them.
This way a distro that supports both sysvinit and systemd (such as
Arch) can
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 05:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one.
There is sd_booted() as public API for that. For what NetworkManager is
doing, runtime detection may indeed
12 matches
Mail list logo
