On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Damjan wrote:
> I don't understand why you think parsing is a hard thing. INI files have
> been around for millennia (in internet years) and both parsers and
> writers for them are well established in many languages.
The question is not whether it is har
On Aug 19, 2012 2:06 PM, "Kwpolska" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Martin Zecher wrote:
> > First of all, I know this has been talked about many times already, but
I
> > still have this problem (since about 3 months now) and haven't found a
way
> > to fix it.
> > Most of the info is
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Martin Zecher wrote:
> First of all, I know this has been talked about many times already, but I
> still have this problem (since about 3 months now) and haven't found a way
> to fix it.
> Most of the info is in this thread, but no one seems to be following it so
>
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
> On 2012/8/17 Myra Nelson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller >wrote:
> >> That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces
> to
> >> systemd,
> >>
> >
> > Thank you. My intent was to start an
2012/8/19 C Anthony Risinger
>
> IMO its very refreshing to finally see these deficiencies being tackled.
Linux landscape had been thirsty for years about these decisions. I like
very much the Arch approach to this matter and, as I said, I like systemd
as my init system.
>>> Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
>>> initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
>> No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren't
>> abandoning init scripts (which they are going to) would be
>> a terrible waste of time.
What upstr
A package for an MTA (for example) will have to know how to start
itself up. You're left with the following options:
1. Rework the MTA to startup with your own method
2. Have the package maintainer somehow allow both such as...
3. Post to the AUR (or whatever) another version of the same
First of all, I know this has been talked about many times already, but I
still have this problem (since about 3 months now) and haven't found a way
to fix it.
Most of the info is in this thread, but no one seems to be following it so
I decided to ask in mail list:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtop
On Aug 19, 2012 10:35 AM, "Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana" <
dottorblas...@archlinux.us> wrote:
> 2012/8/19 Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
> >
> > No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren't
> > abandoning init scripts (which they are going to) would be
> > a terrible waste of time.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 05:28:16PM +0200, Damjan wrote:
> >A package for an MTA (for example) will have to know how to start
> >itself up. You're left with the following options:
> > 1. Rework the MTA to startup with your own method
> > 2. Have the package maintainer somehow allow both such as..
2012/8/19 Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Roel Deckers wrote:
> > Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
> > initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
>
> No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren
A package for an MTA (for example) will have to know how to start
itself up. You're left with the following options:
1. Rework the MTA to startup with your own method
2. Have the package maintainer somehow allow both such as...
3. Post to the AUR (or whatever) another version of the same
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Roel Deckers wrote:
> Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
> initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren't
abandoning init scripts (which they are going to)
On Sunday 19 Aug 2012 13:23:12 Roel Deckers wrote:
> I think a poll is a good idea.
> Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
> initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
> Sure, in the end it's the devs who get the final call, they're putting
> in the work a
On Sunday 19 Aug 2012 19:11:12 you wrote:
> I think the debate of default is useless.
I meant the voting not debate. That was typo.
--
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Quoted from [1]:
"The hardest thing about voting is determining when to do it. In
general, taking a vote should be very rare—a last resort for when all
other options have failed. Don't think of voting as a great way to
resolve debates. It isn't. It ends discussion, and thereby ends creative
thi
> A poll is the best way to solve this
> problem.
A poll would be better done by the mailing list but I can't see anyone
counting and verifying (even then newly seen addresses can't be
verified) and many people don't really care as long as they're system
works the way they want which is why Window
I agree with you. Using systemd to be the default or not is a very
disputable issue. Many people like me do not like it, but some people think
that it is the trend and so accept it. A poll is the best way to solve this
problem.
2012/8/19 Roel Deckers
> I think a poll is a good idea.
> Remember i
On 2012/8/17 Ben Booth wrote:
> Lots of python scripts still use #!/usr/bin/python instead of explicitly
> stating which version of python to use. Here's quick trick to make running
> various python version 2 or 3 scripts easier:
>
> remove the /usr/bin/python symlink and replace with this shell s
I think a poll is a good idea.
Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
Sure, in the end it's the devs who get the final call, they're putting
in the work after all, but a poll can show whether the community
agrees wi
20 matches
Mail list logo
