On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 16:43 +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 Aug 2012 11:16:38 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > You know why, because according to heise some of their longterm devs
> > have left leaving more than half the devs being RedHat employees.
> >
> > p.s. I have nothing against RedHat
On Tuesday 28 Aug 2012 11:16:38 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> You know why, because according to heise some of their longterm devs
> have left leaving more than half the devs being RedHat employees.
>
> p.s. I have nothing against RedHat, I value they're work, mostly the
> work which goes unnoticed. Unf
> > So which components (obviously used by the majority of Arch users) do
> > currently have or will soon have hardcoded! dependencies to systemd?
>
> udev.
>
> Upstream, Gnome has considered it.
You know why, because according to heise some of their longterm devs
have left leaving more than h
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:45:34PM +0200, Jakob Herrmann wrote:
> So which components (obviously used by the majority of Arch users) do
> currently have or will soon have hardcoded! dependencies to systemd?
udev.
Upstream, Gnome has considered it.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Kwpolska wrote:
> Huh? I've never seen any complaints about udev before you.
udev is kinda crufty. And it really doesn't belong inside
the same monolithic program that manages startup and file-
system mounting.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
\begin{quote}
While the main approach of Arch is to use vanilla software, as
possible; Arch devs have to follow upstream decisions and at some
point Arch and other distros fall into software those hide things from
end users. I think most of the main up
I think these discussions will not change the result for Arch. Sooner
or later Arch will have to seperate its way from its KISS philosophy.
While the main approach of Arch is to use vanilla software, as
possible; Arch devs have to follow upstream decisions and at some
point Arch and other distros f
> > I do this all the time with buildroot; udev is a choice, and I often
> > have trouble compiling it because it depends on so many things, like
> > specific kernel configurations, and certain toolchain options. The
> > fact of the matter is that udev doesn't do much for me,
> > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
Op 22 aug. 2012 14:07 schreef "Felipe Contreras"
het volgende:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Guus Snijders
wrote:
> > Op 22 aug. 2012 10:59 schreef "Kevin Chadwick"
het
> > volgende:
> >>
>
> > How about creating a vm with
> > Arch and getting an alternative to udev running?
>
> I do thi
On 08/22/2012 10:46 AM, Jakob Herrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> \begin{quote{}
> Add as the poll shows: More Arch users(80%) agree with upstream for
> this change.
> \end{quote}
> Source?...And which poll? I don't remember that some has been opened.
>
> Cheers,
> Jakob
>
It was a poll started by a memb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
\begin{quote{}
Add as the poll shows: More Arch users(80%) agree with upstream for
this change.
\end{quote}
Source?...And which poll? I don't remember that some has been opened.
Cheers,
Jakob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 22 aug. 2012 10:59 schreef "Kevin Chadwick" het
> volgende:
>>
> Kevin, you seem to be fairly advanced user. How about creating a vm with
> Arch and getting an alternative to udev running?
I do this all the time with buildroot; udev is
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Leon Feng wrote:
> 2012/8/22 Felipe Contreras :
>> Maybe, maybe not, but is it the right choice *now*? That's the question.
>
> Some upstream package are start to require systemd support. Udev,
> Polkit is just an example.
And I say this is extremely bad news. Ma
> Kevin, you seem to be fairly advanced user. How about creating a vm with
> Arch and getting an alternative to udev running?
Seems is probably the right word. We are all fools fiddling in the dark
to some degree with different ground covered. Some of us have more
powerful torches and some keep to
Op 22 aug. 2012 10:59 schreef "Kevin Chadwick" het
volgende:
>
> > > "We", is me and the people that don't like the systemd+udev beast, and
> > > they are a lot.
> >
> > Huh? I've never seen any complaints about udev before you. Mind you,
> > udev is around since 2003.
>
> Actually it's complete
> > "We", is me and the people that don't like the systemd+udev beast, and
> > they are a lot.
>
> Huh? I've never seen any complaints about udev before you. Mind you,
> udev is around since 2003.
Actually it's completely different to back in 2003 because of huge
amounts of complaints. Check
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> "We", is me and the people that don't like the systemd+udev beast, and
> they are a lot.
Huh? I've never seen any complaints about udev before you. Mind you,
udev is around since 2003. It was merged into systemd's source, but
it's not
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> Even with udev moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list
>> has already stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He
>> considers it an
>> abomina
2012/8/22 Felipe Contreras :
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>
>> no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more
>> gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple
>> units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependenc
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>>> Even with udev moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing
>>> list
>>> has already stated his desire to final
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> Even with udev moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list
>> has already stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He
>> considers it an
>> abomina
On 22.08.2012 01:56, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
Even with udev moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list
has already stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He
considers it an
abomination.
Who is this membe
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> Even with udev moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list
> has already stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He
> considers it an
> abomination.
Who is this member? It seems I joined late to the party.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more
> gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple
> units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand
> Unified logging capabi
On 17/08/2012 8:34 AM, Stephen E. Baker wrote:
The other issue I hit was that it didn't like one of my fstab entries,
for a loop back file system in my home partition that I use to fake
a small drive for one of my old wine games. This error caused it to
boot to a
root console where I could see
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
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 intelligent discussion. The rants and
> raves are going no where. I'm not n
+According to Leon Feng:
Systemd support shortform service name now. See the wiki page:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Using_Units
For now, this only seems to work for starting, stopping and reloading
services. Unfortunately it doesn't yet seem to work for enabling or
disabling
2012/8/18 Kyle :
> I made the move to systemd on my flash drive install 2 days ago, and I have
> to say I am impressed. The only extra thing I needed to do was to write a
> unit file for espeakup, since there isn't yet a unit in the package or in
> systemd-arch-units. Writing the new .service file
I made the move to systemd on my flash drive install 2 days ago, and I
have to say I am impressed. The only extra thing I needed to do was to
write a unit file for espeakup, since there isn't yet a unit in the
package or in systemd-arch-units. Writing the new .service file was
extremely quick a
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Arch_integration
> "Warning: /usr must be mounted and available at bootup (this is not
> particular to systemd). If your /usr is on a separate partition, you
> will need to make accommodations to mount it from the initramfs and
> unmount it from a piv
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
>> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
>> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Geoff wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> > Myra Nelson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which
> struck me
> > with greatest force wer
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM, te...@broletto.org wrote:
>> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
>> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
>>
> How many machines are currently running Windows*?
>
Surely that is not particularly relev
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:03:17 +0200
Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> Some people fear that if you use it you will be giving something to that
> unknown project behind systemd.
> But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has
> happened before with bigger projects.
Yes, but I
On 17/08/2012 5:47 AM, Thomas Rand wrote:
Thank you for starting a thread that (crosses fingers) will stay rant
free & intelligent.
After reading all the who-har in the other's I decided to install
systemd on my lappy & TBH was very pleased with the result. That being
that the install itself wa
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> initiatives like this are not removing choice
... Kinda.
This initiative doesn't remove choice. It is a natural consequence
of the greater linux ecosystem choosing to abandon some choices.
Am convinced that moving to systemd
> But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has
> happened before with bigger projects.
That's true but no one can do that on a whim and apparently (Redhat
Dev) the code is rediculously hard to follow and review. I believe the
ones who would do that will likely just star
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Geoff wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:08:32 -0500
> C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you
> > know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) --
> > every distro pretty much does it t
Jn
Inviato da HTC
- Reply message -
Da: "Jorge Almeida"
A: "General Discussion about Arch Linux"
Oggetto: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
Data: ven, ago 17, 2012 11:48
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> most of which are systems usi
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:08:32 -0500
C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>
> the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you
> know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) --
> every distro pretty much does it the same way, but pointlessly
> independent, thus resulting in an
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:57:51 +
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
+1 to every word. I ran LFS for three years, partly because I wanted to learn
and partly to avoid the issues you mention. I left only because at that point in
my life it was too time-consuming and Arch offered an ideal alternative.
Geo
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more
> gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple
> units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand
> Unified logging
2012/8/17 mike cloaked :
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
>> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
>> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much s
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
>
How many machines are currently running Windows*?
Jorge Almeida
On 17 August 2012 11:31, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
>> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
>> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and ove
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> last dev who real
I used to have seperate /usr partition, previous year, I didn't remember
details but
there was a bug that force me to reinstall my sytem without a sperate /usr
partition.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:14:58AM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> > of l
2012/8/17 Geoff :
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> Myra Nelson wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck
> me
> with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
> advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
Thank you for a reas
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> Myra Nelson wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck
> me
> with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
> advantage of system
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
Myra Nelson wrote:
I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck me
with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation between Linux distribution". I
hav
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson
> wrote:
>
> > There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move
> to
> > systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> > "seeing a dead horse k
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> last dev who real
There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
"seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
for a
55 matches
Mail list logo
