Khem Raj raj.khem-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org writes:
On the specifics of the do_install_append, you've seen my comments about
how we're not learning from past mistakes with the way the do_install in
the class was written. I note Phil also agreed with them, both of us
Ross Burton ross.burton-ral2jqcrhueavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
the source, so enabling systemd may well lead to libsystemd-* libraries
sneaking into your rescue image.
for socket activation and sd_notify(), only libsystemd-daemon is required
which is
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Ross Burton ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
Just brainstorming out loud, but here's a suggestion that might just please
everyone:
A virtual provider for the init manager, which can be overridden per-image
(for main / rescue images).
Yes I was thinking
On (16/02/13 11:41), Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 08:47 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On
Hi,
Just brainstorming out loud, but here's a suggestion that might just please
everyone:
A virtual provider for the init manager, which can be overridden per-image (for
main / rescue images).
DISTRO_FEATURES contains the init script *style* that you want: sysvinit or
systemd. These are not
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On (16/02/13 11:41), Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 08:47 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:15
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:04:42PM +, Ross Burton wrote:
On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 14:06, Otavio Salvador wrote:
DISTRO_FEATURES contains the init script *style* that you want: sysvinit
or systemd. These are not mutually exclusive so specifying both will get
you both directly
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ross Burton ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
The size impact it not negligible; specially for initramfs images but
what concerns me even more is the upgrade path from previous users of
meta-oe systemd.
I obviously didn't make myself clear - the size impact is
Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com writes:
But it doesn't need to be as dangerous as binconfig.bbclass, because
we already list .service or .socket files in SYSTEMD_SERVICE so we
can improve that find call
Why is 'find' required at all? afaik, only files from $SRC_URI are
affected. So we
On 21 February 2013 10:34, Enrico Scholz
enrico.sch...@sigma-chemnitz.de wrote:
oh... this means khem's meta-systemd: Append ${PN} to SYSTEMD_SERVICE
patch series is incomplete and all the do_install_append() need to get
yet more complicated
What was originally in meta-systemd, and what is
Burton, Ross ross.burton-ral2jqcrhueavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
more upstream over time will also integrate systemd unit files
directly.
When in 5 or 10 years everybody switched to systemd and installs its
service files by itself, we can mark the relevant code in the class as
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Enrico Scholz
enrico.sch...@sigma-chemnitz.de wrote:
Burton, Ross ross.burton-ral2jqcrhueavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
more upstream over time will also integrate systemd unit files
directly.
When in 5 or 10 years everybody switched to systemd and
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 08:50 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I fully agree; we have many cases where classes workaround system
issues/limitations to avoid code duplications so I see no reason why
this needs to be different with systemd.
If you wanted to propose an addition to the class that
Hi,
This thread started sprawling, so I'll do my best to cover all the
points. This is also mainly an attempt to get more information as to
how people are using init managers, as it's still not very clear what
people want beyond choice.
With recent systemd packaging change, the rescue image
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
This thread started sprawling, so I'll do my best to cover all the
points. This is also mainly an attempt to get more information as to
how people are using init managers, as it's still not very clear what
Burton, Ross ross.burton-ral2jqcrhueavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
With recent systemd packaging change, the rescue image size grow up
from 5.9 MiB to 27 MiB because systemd dependencies are hardcoded in
mandatory packages.
This certainly can happen. core-image-minimal-initramfs went
On 18 February 2013 10:17, Enrico Scholz
enrico.sch...@sigma-chemnitz.de wrote:
But it doesn't need to be as dangerous as binconfig.bbclass, because
we already list .service or .socket files in SYSTEMD_SERVICE so we can
improve that find call
Why is 'find' required at all? afaik, only files
Martin Jansa martin.jansa-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
On the specifics of the do_install_append, you've seen my comments
about how we're not learning from past mistakes with the way the
do_install in the class was written. I note Phil also agreed with
them, both of us
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
meta-oe earned a *horrendous* reputation because of the way systemd was
implemented there.
Can you point me to the corresponding discussion resp. which aspects of
the meta-oe implementation were criticized?
I can image only two
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:53:07PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On the specifics of the do_install_append, you've seen my comments about
how we're not learning from past mistakes with the way the do_install in
the class was written. I note Phil also agreed with them, both of us
remembering
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 19:19 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
Being a distribution feature means, that packages are created in such a
way that it is impossible to split
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 19:19 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
Being a
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
The trouble is that by making it an image feature, people will
expect *everything* to work properly and
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 12:57 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
The trouble is that by making it an image
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 08:47 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 19:19 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 12:57 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 08:47 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 19:19 +0100, Enrico Scholz
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:34:58PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 12:57 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a
distribution
feature will be reverted to the
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:34:58PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 12:57 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
it would be nice when the decision to
Sorry I didn't pipe up earlier but we are still working from denzil so I hadn't
noticed the steady move away from supporting both sysvinit and systemd in a
single distro. We have a similar use case to Otavio where we are hoping to move
to systemd this year, but we'll need to use sysvinit for
Hello,
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
Being a distribution feature means, that packages are created in such a
way that it is impossible to split off unwanted and heavy weighted
functionality at
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Enrico Scholz
enrico.sch...@sigma-chemnitz.de wrote:
Hello,
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
Being a distribution feature means, that packages are created in such
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 04:47:37PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Enrico Scholz
enrico.sch...@sigma-chemnitz.de wrote:
Hello,
it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution
feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism.
33 matches
Mail list logo
