2008/4/8, Geoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:22:26 +0200
> Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David Moore
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > One of the reasons I stay subscribed to this list is
> > > so that I can learn more about
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:22:26 +0200
Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David Moore
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One of the reasons I stay subscribed to this list is
> > so that I can learn more about my system. In that
> > light, would you mind sharing with
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One of the reasons I stay subscribed to this list is so that I can learn more
> about my system. In that light, would you mind sharing with us why exactly
> you
> did drop the idea? I would really like to know.
>
http
On 4/8/08, David Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >> Simple as in a technical standpoint, says that it should be mounted in
> >> fstab. Why? Because fstab is the place were filesystems that should be
> >> m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bächler wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Simple as in a technical standpoint, says that it should be mounted in
>> fstab. Why? Because fstab is the place were filesystems that should be
>> mounted on boot go. The damn thing is *made* for it.
>
> I already d
Oh crap people.
Shut up.
I'm moderating every person that replies to this thread from here on out.
On 4/8/08, Michal Soltys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
> >
> > The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely
> > useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface).
> >
> > However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rationa
Thomas Bächler wrote:
The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely
useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface).
However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational
reasons not to hardcode devpts?
I'm 100% with Thomas for it (alon
On Monday 07 April 2008, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> [many comments skipped]
>
> Could we please finally STOP insulting devs?
> There are _more civilized_ ways for discussion.
Agreed - this recent phenomena is absolutely absurd and completely painful to
read.
-Snark
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:52:21PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> RedShift schrieb:
You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
>>>
>>> YOUR principle.
>>
>> Yes, and guess where I got them from. Arch, 3 years ago.
> There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:47:26 RedShift wrote:
> The thread resulted in savagery - nowhere
> near civilized. I apologize for that. I will try and keep my e-mails more
> professional.
Right. pretty unprofessional. awkward.
Sorry from me too. That doesn't change my opinion but i agree that we won't
On Montag, 7. April 2008 19:10 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> I'm sick of being insulted and I'm sick of Arch or my work on Arch being
> compared to Ubuntu, because they're nothing alike.
+1 I don't think this, not now and not in the future. Thanks for your work and
for your answers here.
This is threa
Attila a écrit :
On Montag, 7. April 2008 12:00 Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
I think that is a good reason why the mount commands should be in /etc/fstab
and not in some obscure init script.
I suggest the same because the fstab is the best point to collect the
necessary informations about what h
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15
from rc.sysinit.
Can I get opinions on these?
Thomas,
Hav
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15
from rc.sysinit.
Can I get opinions on these?
Thomas,
Having read your last
This thread has gotten ridiculous.
Thread locked.
owait...
Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
I quote:
"'Simple' is defined from a technical standpoint, not a usability
standpoint. It is better to be technically elegant with a higher
learning curve, than to be easy to use, and technically crap."
What you don't get is that if you have to make a decision bet
RedShift schrieb:
his flexibility has not been reduced at all, he is as happy as
before (in fact, he won't even notice). To go
further: if he really wants to configure 'lo' differently (which he
doesn't), he still can.
weird. exactly the arguments ubuntu devs use.
I am insulted by that comm
Original Message
Subject: Re:[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
From: Alessio Bolognino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: arch-general@archlinux.org
Date: lun 07 avr 2008 18:48:13 CEST
...
However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational
r
On 4/7/08, Alessio Bolognino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thomas, if you are afraid that users could remove that line from fstab,
> why
> don't you just put a "# Warning, do not remove these lines unless you
> really
> know what you are doing" or something like that? I think this will reduce
> c
Alessio Bolognino wrote:
Thomas, if you are afraid that users could remove that line from fstab, why
don't you just put a "# Warning, do not remove these lines unless you really
know what you are doing" or something like that? I think this will reduce
complexity of rc.sysinit (not very much, I h
On Monday 07 April 2008 17:45:29 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> I quote:
> "'Simple' is defined from a technical standpoint, not a usability
> standpoint. It is better to be technically elegant with a higher
> learning curve, than to be easy to use, and technically crap."
>
> What you don't get is that if
On Mon 2008-04-07 00:07 , Thomas Bächler wrote:
> RedShift schrieb:
>> Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
>>>
>>> 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
>>
>> What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to ha
On Montag, 7. April 2008 12:00 Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
> I think that is a good reason why the mount commands should be in /etc/fstab
> and not in some obscure init script.
I suggest the same because the fstab is the best point to collect the
necessary informations about what have to be mounted
Thomas Bächler wrote:
Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo'
is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo'
interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
I just
Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo'
is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo'
interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
I just assume as few knowledg
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:41:53 +0200
David Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> [snip]
> > There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
> > am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even
[many comments skipped]
Could we please finally STOP insulting devs?
There are _more civilized_ ways for discussion.
--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:15 -0300, Rodrigo Coacci wrote:
> I believe the missing question is: what is the rationale beyond this
> decision of putting the /dev/pts out of fstab? Besides the
> aforementioned robustness (which at some point I tend to agree), what
> else would be the technically benefi
I believe the missing question is: what is the rationale beyond this
decision of putting the /dev/pts out of fstab? Besides the aforementioned
robustness (which at some point I tend to agree), what else would be the
technically benefits? If for nothing else than "stopping the user to shoot
his foot
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ubuntu-simple and arch-simple are different.
Arch-simple and, say, Crux-simple is also different. To follow your
logic, we should also get rid of pacman and ready-made packages as
well -- why hide the complexity
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:36:29 -0400
Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who wants to
> see Arch Linux become LFS+pacman? Nobody I think.
Not to start an argument with you Loui (because I *do* see
what you mean), but in all honesty the answer to your
question is "me". I went from LFS to Slackware a
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo'
> is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo'
> interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
> Then I look at the user under the assumption that he knows
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bächler wrote:
[snip]
> There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
> am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
> it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:58:22 +0200
RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
> > am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
> > it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you clai
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to
be Arch's principles, insulting developers and being an ass on the way.
RedShift schrieb:
You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
YOUR principle.
Yes, and guess where I got them from. Arch, 3 years ago.
I doubt that narrow-mindedness is a principle that you got from Arch.
It is not mandatory for basic system operation. With basic system
operati
Nicely put and seconded Geoff.
Geoff wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:28:42 +0200
Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think these things shouldn't be discussed in public
anymore.
Whatever may be the outcome of this particular debate, I do
respectfully suggest that it would be a
Would it not be possible to do something like moving all the virtual FS stuff
to a specific file (say fstab.virtual or whatever you want) imported from fstab
(thus easy to locate) ?
To me, it would make it easy to edit while keeping the content of fstab simple,
and nothing would be hardcoded...
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:28:42 +0200
Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think these things shouldn't be discussed in public
> anymore.
Whatever may be the outcome of this particular debate, I do
respectfully suggest that it would be a retrograde step to
take discussion of these issues (e
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
without these filesystems mounted:
- SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
- None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
It doesn't p
måndag 07 april 2008 skrev Jan de Groot:
> /proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
> without these filesystems mounted:
> - SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
> - None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
In a c
On Monday 07 April 2008 11:28:42 Jan de Groot wrote:
> I think these things shouldn't be discussed in public anymore.
Exactly the wrong way. Face the critics or dig a hole and wait for it to be
over.
On Monday 07 April 2008 11:39:32 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > You guys just don't get it. This is
> /proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
> without these filesystems mounted:
> - SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
> - None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
I don't get the problem.
It's not like people ar
RedShift schrieb:
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
without these filesystems mounted:
- SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
- None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
It doesn't prevent the system from
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:12 +0200, RedShift wrote:
I'm sick and tired of complaining about issues like these, that
shouldn't be discussed in the first place. Do you think I like
complaining? Since when do we assume the user is stupid? All that's
been accomplished here is crea
RedShift wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with p
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:12 +0200, RedShift wrote:
> I'm sick and tired of complaining about issues like these, that
> shouldn't be discussed in the first place. Do you think I like
> complaining? Since when do we assume the user is stupid? All that's
> been accomplished here is create a big mess.
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in fs
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
> > Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > > RedShift schrieb:
> > >> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > >>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) I'd
- Can anyone think of a case where pts should NOT be mounted. You
don't want someone having to edit a script.
- Will this break some scripts that might rely on grepping fstab? (For
example, this could make a port from other Linux distros harder)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > RedShift schrieb:
> >> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
> >>>
> >>> 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with putting
RedShift schrieb:
Yes. It's not logical. fstab was made for mounting filesystems, why even
consider moving it to rc.sysinit? It's not because it makes the system
unusable without it, that it should be moved to rc.sysinit. Why the
change anyway? What's the benefit? Now we're going to see "Heeey
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have
that mounted? So instead of modified f
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have
that mounted? So instead of modified fstab I'd have to mess w
2008/4/6, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15 from
> rc.sysinit.
+1 here.
--
Giovanni Scafora
Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull)
http://www.archlinux.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have that
mounted? So instead of modified fstab I'd have to mess with rc.sysinit
eve
57 matches
Mail list logo
