On Sun, 2013-12-29 at 14:02 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> I was referring more to Tollef's position, really. Debian systemd
> maintenance ought to take into account matters of Debian integration,
> which includes whether it fits well into best-of-breed Debian practice.
>
> If it's easy enough to o
]] Colin Watson
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 08:49:11AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > As I explain in the bug [1], I think that the facilities provided by
> > > binfmt-support are objectively superior; and even if they were broadly
> > > equivalent, I'd still question the utility of converting
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 05:56:30AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 21:42 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The first reason is, I suppose, rather selfish: I've been working on
> > this on and off for fourteen years and it seems a bit rude for systemd
> > to turn up and declare that i
On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 21:42 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 08:49:11AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > In this particular case, as you write, I hadn't really given it any
> > consideration before, but what I think would make sense is to extend
> > systemd to support the same
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 08:49:11AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > As I explain in the bug [1], I think that the facilities provided by
> > binfmt-support are objectively superior; and even if they were broadly
> > equivalent, I'd still question the utility of converting packages from
> > an inte
#716812 asks for binfmt-support to be disabled when systemd is present,
because systemd-binfmt exists. The two have a sort of soft conflict;
I'm sure it's possible to run both, but having two programs configure
the same kernel facility is bound to be confusing sooner or later, so it
would certainl
6 matches
Mail list logo
