Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Jayesh Badwaik
Ahh, I thought so. It was only forked yesterday, so there is not much to be expected in terms of changes right now. But going by the number of veterans and others who have commented on it, I thought that it is possible that this is legit. Also, the guys there are talking like they are the one g

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Zeke Sulastin
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Jayesh Badwaik wrote: > Hi, > > Apparently, Gentoo has recently forked udev. [1] I am not completely > sure since the main poster is a n00b according to the gentoo forum > ratings, but rest of the discussions seems legit. Actually, a guy forked it and announced it

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Jayesh Badwaik
Hi, Apparently, Gentoo has recently forked udev. [1] I am not completely sure since the main poster is a n00b according to the gentoo forum ratings, but rest of the discussions seems legit. -- Cheers and Regards Jayesh Badwaik stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Kevin Chadwick
> I'm pretty sure at least Ubuntu will keep patches to make some of such > apps work without systemd. I can maintain these in community if that > time comes. But I can care about KDE only, making GNOME work without > systemd would be a too difficult (I don't use it and they are much > more likely t

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Kevin Chadwick
> at some point other packages are > likely to depend on you booting with systemd (NetworkManager, polkit, > Gnome, etc.). Do you mean the packages compiled for Arch with systemd enabled options like firefoxes with dbus? I don't see these packages removing more than half their userbase and I don't

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > "[...]its communication channels should be installed before the daemon is > started up [...]" This is the point. If a daemon has been customized for systemd (which some have, and hopefully more will), then it will expect systemd to s

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Lukas Jirkovsky
On 28 August 2012 11:05, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Lukas Jirkovsky > wrote: >> I'm pretty sure at least Ubuntu will keep patches to make some of such >> apps work without systemd. > > So far we see that whenever systemd is made optional, it is optional > at compile

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > I'm pretty sure at least Ubuntu will keep patches to make some of such > apps work without systemd. So far we see that whenever systemd is made optional, it is optional at compile-time rather than at run-time (which would have been ideal,

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Lukas Jirkovsky
On 27 August 2012 18:16, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky > wrote: >> I can help (or at least try to) with support for initscripts > > Anyone who wants to help, please join arch-proje...@archlinux.org, > review patches, use initscripts from git/testing and

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Guus Snijders wrote: > Op 28 aug. 2012 10:06 schreef "Tom Gundersen" het volgende: >> If that works, it would be great. However, I'm very skeptical. I don't >> see how this could possibly work for services of type other than >> "forking" (i.e., how to simulate so

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Guus Snijders
Op 28 aug. 2012 10:06 schreef "Tom Gundersen" het volgende: > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > Notice that debian is working on a tool to automagically convert unit > > systemd files into initscripts. > > > > https://github.com/akhilvij/systemd-to-sysvinit-converte

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > Notice that debian is working on a tool to automagically convert unit > systemd files into initscripts. > > https://github.com/akhilvij/systemd-to-sysvinit-converter If that works, it would be great. However, I'm very skeptical. I don't

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Jayesh Badwaik
On Monday 27 Aug 2012 11:30:46 Joakim Hernberg wrote: > I don't run gnome, but kde is just as bad in this case :( I use KDE regularly. It works perfectly fine with/without pulseaudio. (Actually since archlinux does not install pulseaudio by default, I did not notice it was not installed for a l

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Sujith
Thomas Bächler wrote: > > Please support our traditional initscripts as long as possible, as I for > > one really don't look forwards to systemd, at least not at this point > > in time. Reasons excluded to avoid yet another flamefest...:( > > If you search the archives, you will notice that longe

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > I can help (or at least try to) with support for initscripts Anyone who wants to help, please join arch-proje...@archlinux.org, review patches, use initscripts from git/testing and report problems. > if it's > going to be a burden for you

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Lukas Jirkovsky
On 27 August 2012 10:40, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Aug 27, 2012 10:32 AM, "Joakim Hernberg" wrote: >> Please support our traditional initscripts as long as possible, > > I will. I just don't know how long that will be, so people should prepare > to move. > > Tom I can help (or at least try to) w

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Stephen E. Baker
On 27/08/2012 9:39 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:30:46 +0200 schrieb Joakim Hernberg : I don't run gnome, but kde is just as bad in this case :( Try Xfce. ;-) http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/consolekit/ would suggest that xfce is not safe in this regard. lxde is

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Heiko Baums
Am Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:30:46 +0200 schrieb Joakim Hernberg : > I don't run gnome, but kde is just as bad in this case :( Try Xfce. ;-) Heiko

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Jakob Herrmann
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, \begin{quote} But this only concerns the booting itself. As consolekit is unmaintained, polkit will soon depend on systemd. The next Gnome version will require systemd - more to come \end{quote} Isn't it possible to start systemd daemon-like i

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Joakim Hernberg
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:48:32 +0200 Thomas Bächler wrote: > But this only concerns the booting itself. As consolekit is > unmaintained, polkit will soon depend on systemd. The next Gnome > version will require systemd - more to come. I don't run gnome, but kde is just as bad in this case :( > Th

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 27.08.2012 10:32, schrieb Joakim Hernberg: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:48:48 +0200 > Tom Gundersen wrote: > >> Since the above quoted statement was made, a decision was taken to >> move to systemd by default, so it clearly no longer applies. While you >> are still free to use initscripts, at some

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Aug 27, 2012 10:32 AM, "Joakim Hernberg" wrote: > Please support our traditional initscripts as long as possible, I will. I just don't know how long that will be, so people should prepare to move. Tom

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Joakim Hernberg
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:48:48 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote: > Since the above quoted statement was made, a decision was taken to > move to systemd by default, so it clearly no longer applies. While you > are still free to use initscripts, at some point other packages are > likely to depend on you boo

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: > "Nobody is forcing systemd on anybody." > > Wasn't it this what was always said by the devs in all those long > threads about systemd? And what are you doing now? Isn't this not > forcing it on everybody? No one were forcing systemd on anybody

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Geert Hendrickx wrote: > A systemd upgrade question (not related to this particular update), > do you generally need to reboot when systemd is upgraded? In general, it is probably a good idea to reboot after upgrading low-level packages. In the case of systemd, it

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-27 Thread Geert Hendrickx
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 17:15:39 -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > Hi, > > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed on > IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough > audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189 now > provides,

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a?singular package

2012-08-26 Thread Daniel Wallace
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 08:24:21AM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > Heiko Baums wrote: > > Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400 > schrieb Dave Reisner : > > > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed > > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide e

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-26 Thread Sven-Hendrik Haase
Heiko Baums wrote: Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400 schrieb Dave Reisner : > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough > audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189 > now

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-26 Thread Ike Devolder
Op maandag 27 augustus 2012 07:59:52 schreef Heiko Baums: > Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400 > > schrieb Dave Reisner : > > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed > > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough > > audience. Some of you hav

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-26 Thread Daniel Wallace
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 07:59:52AM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400 > schrieb Dave Reisner : > > > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed > > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough > > audience. Some of you

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] merging systemd back to a singular package

2012-08-26 Thread Heiko Baums
Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400 schrieb Dave Reisner : > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough > audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189 > now provides, conflicts,