I would like to help in some capacity. Would working in a chrooted
environment or would one need a fully fledged os?
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Greetings earthlings,
>
> As some of you may know, I've been doing the bulk of the package
> maintenance on the mysql packag
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 07:57:50AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I don't have anything against Colin Watson, and have nothing in
> particular to complain about in his reply concerning the conflict of
> interest. But I don't think there really is much he could even
> theoretically say to fully remove
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 07:57:50 Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Unless there's some kind of disclosure policy for everyone involved in the
> > any technical discussion around Debian,
>
> CTTE decisions are quite distinct from "any technical discussion".
>
> > I think it's
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 06:57:50AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > The usefulness of supporting --as-needed isn't because of Ubuntu. It's
> > > because switching --as-needed on across the board
> >
> > I think it would be better send all our upstreams patches for their
> > build systems than to
Funny thing, the people who are undermining the Debian processes most loudly
are not even Debian Developers and thus they are not bound by them.
I am tired of this recurring flamewar, please stop it and let the tech-ctte do
their job. This is not a democracy any more, but the loudiestcracy.
O.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:51:41AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The usefulness of supporting --as-needed isn't because of Ubuntu. It's
> > because switching --as-needed on across the board
>
> I think it would be better send all our upstreams
Brian May wrote:
> As much as I would like to see systemd as the default in Debian (and
> have switched to it on my Desktops), I see two show stopper issues:
>
>
> * Needs to work (somehow) with other applications (including not in
> Debian) that need to manage cgroups. In Debian this would incl
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Unless there's some kind of disclosure policy for everyone involved in the
> any
> technical discussion around Debian,
CTTE decisions are quite distinct from "any technical discussion".
> I think it's silly to claim Steve and
> Colin are inherently unable to separate
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31:32PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Personally, I don't think there's more than one sane choice for Jessie anyway:
>
> 1. Init systems in Debian MUST provided compatibility with sysvinit scripts.
> 2. Packages needing an init MUST provide a sysvinit script and may
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:53:35PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> They choose the way most easy for them, which is behavior often
> encountered inside the systemd-favoring community. Too bad.
You mean ConsoleKit with this? Why GNOME? Do you know it is on
freedesktop.org? Do you know there hasn't been
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> That is my gripe, that's the core problem in GNOME. It's why I stopped
> trying to develop code to work alongside GNOME and only work with XFCE
> and Qt. GNOME upstream are toxic.
XFCE is same as GNOME:
- Supports ConsoleKit
- Suppor
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:28PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
> >> is said to disable the ability of user
Hi there!
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:17:03 -0700, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> And neither my IBM X40 nor my employer's X61 can boot from SD card,
> despite having the drive built in. Sucks.
Off-topic, but still.
My X60 (from late 2006) can not either, but IMHO the reason behind it
that the SD reader it
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> The usefulness of supporting --as-needed isn't because of Ubuntu. It's
> because switching --as-needed on across the board
I think it would be better send all our upstreams patches for their
build systems than to work around all the bugs in
David Kalnischkies writes:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>>> Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
>>>
I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
>
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:45:55 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:33:01PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> > I think that is all true and correct, but I certainly didn't get that from
> > the original message. It certainly read to me like an attempt to undermine
> > the le
Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:33:01PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>
> I think that is all true and correct, but I certainly didn't get that from
> the original message. It certainly read to me like an attempt to undermine
> the legitimacy of any future TB decision in favor of upstart. ICBW, of
On 25 October 2013 23:29, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
> init system.
>
As much as I would like to see systemd as the default in Debian (and have
switched to it on my Desktops), I see two show stopper issues:
* Needs to work (someho
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:42:55AM +1100, Jackson Doak wrote:
> +1 to xfce, but it might be worth using a nicer theme than the current xfce
> one.
It might be good to default to what's used on XFCE's own homepage. That
icon theme, faenza, is stuck in ITP (#595106), despite at least two people
ha
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:22 AM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port
> almost done.
> Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully.
Congrats!
Please create a page on the Debian wiki and or update the MIPSPort
wiki page about this
On 25 October 2013 21:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> - it's pam module called "pam_systemd" instead of logind
>
It wouldn't be the first PAM module with an inappropriate name.
(e.g. pam_unix.so would be less confusing if it was called pam_nss.so IMHO,
as if I understand correctly it uses NSS lib
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>> Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
>>
>>> I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
>>> sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
>>> incarnate and FORCE them to use
Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> Possible alternative choices for the GR would be:
>
> - switch to systemd, do not permit any other init system
>
> - switch to upstart, do not permit any other init system
>
> - switch to systemd/upstart for $subset_of_arch
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:00 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> * CVE 2013-4327 - Towards a world where even simple systems and
> firewalls are vulnerable!
>
> p.s. CVE-2013-4392, CVE-2013-4391 and I think I've missed out the really
> bad one to do with remote connection.
On one hand I agree, we see s
Andrew Kane dixit:
>A lot of these boxes are ones that one would reasonably expect to
>support booting from USB, but in some cases the option isn't there in
>the BIOS setup or boot menu and in others the option is there but is
>ignored on boot some or all of the time. The inability to boot from a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 07:51 -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
>
>> As someone who deals with a lot of random donated hardware, I can
>> attest that we run into these cases frequently.
>
> Interesting data point, thanks. hat sort of vintage of random h
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>> Bastien wrote:
>
>>> It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known
>ubuntu
>>> developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting
>against
>>> upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
>>> facts,
> You're aware that GNOME and systemd upstreams are two completely
> distinct groups
But they do both have strong redhat links, coincidence or not.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
> This is a move to SABOTAGE linux as an OS.
I have to admit if RedHat stuck to kernel work, I would be much
happier.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to
> E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
> you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
not either.
--
___
'Write programs that do one
> I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
> system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some
sort of oversight on th
> without being micromanaged in what they put into their dependency
> fields.
That's an odd comment as the dependencies should ideally be the very
minimal that are absolutely required. (I understand it may not be
always easy)
--
___
> * it is buggy. I did install a straightforward install of experimental
> GNOME to test if it improved even a bit, running systemd as init, and, with
> 2G RAM assigned to the machine, I got an OOM from one of systemd's
> components. Excuse me for not looking more closely but purging the machine
> > I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
> > in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
> > do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
> > sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
> > elimin
> Pros:
>
> * CD#1 will work again without size worries
>
> * Smaller, simpler desktop
>
> * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
>
> * Does not depend on replacing init
* Users can pick and choose components and drop down the size
significantly such as for debian embedded or s
> > Why should I have installed packages I'm not using and I don't want to
> > use? I know it's rhetorical question but not all systems are having
> > enough disk space besides I don't like have packages I'm not using on
> > my systems. So it's not a solution to anything just kind a nasty
> > wor
> For people who just don't care, are you doing them a favour by installing
> xfce rather than GNOME?
>
> I don't think so. Most of the things people hate about GNOME are things that
> GNOME is doing to specifically target people who just don't care.
Personally I wouldn't put Gnome 3 in front of
> XFCE is short of maintainers, both upstream and debian, but 4.12 is
> expected to be released sometime in the next 6 months. That said,
> everything both debian and upstream is stable, and a number of 4.11
> "development release" packages are able to be uploaded to experimental
> if more people c
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Also, I was not in a position to try gnome 3.4 myself at all, hardware,
> and bandwidth wise, until rather too late in the release cycle. I didn't
> see conclusive proof that gnome 3.4 was really the wrong default for
> wheezy until I sta
[Not defending the rather odd NMU practice here, but ...]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:57:24PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Until then there's no action needed to make it work in Debian. Debian is
> not Ubuntus development platform, so why should one NMU stuff for this
> when it's not needed in D
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 07:51 -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > ...I've been
> > > told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> > > owning/running hardware
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:56:20PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I do see quite an amount of ignorance and pushing regarding adoption of
> systemd and GNOME. I fully accept that it may be difficult to agree on a way
> forward? but currently I get the impression that any neither GNOME nor
>
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:15AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
> but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
> of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
> will keep supporti
Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
>> discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
>> day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
>> feel. Let's change the default desktop fo
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> > As someone who deals with a lot of random donated hardware, I can
> > attest that we run into these cases frequently. It may be rare that
> > new systems lack these capa
Andy Cater wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
>> default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
>>
>> 1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
>>BD)
Nikolaus Rath dixit:
>To cut a long story short, I am not convinced that by open sourcing my
>code I am acquiring a moral obligation to take into account the
>preferences of potential users in future versions - no matter how large
But that’s just the thing! You are!
Of course, only in a way, and
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> To cut a long story short, I am not convinced that by open sourcing my
> code I am acquiring a moral obligation to take into account the
> preferences of potential users in future versions - no matter how large
> (or vocal) the userbase.
+1
Obviously, there are drawbacks
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
>
>> I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
>> sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
>> incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should
> […]
>> can be, and I th
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Isnât that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
>> clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
>> important on it?
>
>Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompat
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:37:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> > Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> > systemd, GNOME or similar.
> > In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
> I'm missing a key bit of context her
Le ven. 25 oct. 2013 21:34:39 CEST, Joey Hess a écrit :
> Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
>> I only know what dgit does from reading the source code. dgit works
>> server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
>> a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 13:36 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> I firmly
> believe that GNOME threw away that justification with GNOME Shell and
> if GNOME persists in the eye-candy approach and then adds an entirely
> unjustifiable dependency from a *desktop* to an *init* system then I
> hav
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 18:15 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> The option existed to make the desired features optional and that
> option was deliberately written out in an effort to extend GNOME beyond
> a desktop.
Oh, but of course these features are optional. You can still run GNOME
wit
Neil Williams writes:
> If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's own
> merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of a
> fait-accompli "systemd is part of the GNOME dependency chain, so tough"
> then I am quite happy to dismiss systemd as an option simply
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
> but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
> of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
> will keep supporting Upst
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:09:44PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Are either of the alternatives, at the versions currently in Debian
> testing, ready for the migration? (I have no idea, I'm wondering out
> loud).
upstart is two package integration uploads away from being ready.
> How long might
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is
> > a
> No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
> files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
> boot
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 14:21 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
> > servers.
>
> Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
Not when one of the nonsensical arguments used for systemd-bashing is
that it would be in
Colin Watson wrote:
> I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing
> subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my
> vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring
> relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as w
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:42:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
> >init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
> >half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
> I disagree: neither upstart nor syste
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> They have proposed a release goal that is probably a necessary
> prerequisite for default init but has not yet been achieved. (I wouldn't
> expect it to be, yet. We aren't releasing for ages.)
No. The decision of the default i
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte,
> I can't help but think it's premature.
>
> The systemd maintainers have never said that they believe systemd is ready to
> be the default init nor whether they could handle supporting it if
On Oct 25, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the long term, we certainly need a decision for the default init system
> in Debian.
No: we need one in the short term to be able to support it in jessie, or
we will be stuck with an antiquated init system for many more years.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.as
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
> > help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
> > that's in place f
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > > This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
> > > > little discussi
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte,
Thank you, I'm happy to hear it came across that way (it's how it was
done, FWIW)
> I can't help but think it's premature.
Perhaps.
>
2013/10/25 Colin Watson :
> [...]
> One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my
> employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself
> from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that
> would be generally understood as ethical behav
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot infrastructure: mounting local/remote bl
Hi Paul,
Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte, I
can't help but think it's premature.
The systemd maintainers have never said that they believe systemd is ready to
be the default init nor whether they could handle supporting it if the decision
was made o
> On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
> help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
> that's in place for these packages in Ubuntu.
Aren't these folks working on it?
https:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libjs-img.srcset
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : David Knight
* URL : https://github.com/weblinc/img-srcset
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Javascript
Description : fast Java
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:31:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bastien beudart writes:
> > It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> > developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
> > upstart, I know that the decision should be based around t
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:19:30PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > Is there one in Debian?
> > Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> > problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> > approaching usable GUI support, even disco
On 2013-10-25, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I just gave KDE a try with my laptop fliped to tablet mode,
> and did not see anything that works better than xfce. I was still stuck
> fatfingered with a tiny panel, and once I started konqueror, could
> not drag to scroll the page, or make any other gesture
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> > problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> > approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
>
> Plasma Active is quite mature and
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
> default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
>
> 1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
>BD) where we can happily ins
Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
> I only know what dgit does from reading the source code. dgit works
> server-side and is only available to DDs; as I understand it it creates
> a new, canonical repo, imports the current version and uses that as a
> base for new uploads. It's useful as part of a maint
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 20:40, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this
> is a good thing. (Or maybe it's not, but supporting just one would definitly
> be our worst choice at this time.)
As a maintainer of several packages (~10) that provide
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
Plasma Active is quite mature and I'm sure the debian KDE team wo
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
Yo, Holger!
> On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
> > *anyone* wants to get into.
>
> are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*?
Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +]:
> > Let's tech committee it :)
>
> I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
> or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
> one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently
Neil Williams wrote:
> Is there one in Debian?
>
> Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
I know that multiple desktop projects are interested
Hi,
On Fr 25 Okt 2013 13:52:05 CEST, Olav Vitters wrote:
Note that also various MATE developers have git.gnome.org accounts (I
set that up for them). IIRC they took over one of the deprecated
components.
just for the record: The MATE Packaging Team is preparing the MATE
desktop for Debian.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
>No, but GNOME has a mission to create a great desktop-environment
>which is easy to use and "just works". And logind (in combination with
>systemd) offers features to accomplish that goal and provides some
>truly awesome features for sess
Hi,
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
> *anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I always assume there are
a few, but you make it sound like it is the majority ;-p
Ser
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I've said that for years, but we still haven't changed to KDE Plasma
> Desktop as the default.
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=task-xfce-desktop+task-lxde-desktop+task-kde-desktop&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&da
And, since I've been informed that this was basically a contentless bug,
I'd like to frame the technical half of the question better:
Whereas:
* the init system / pid 1 is a bit of software that multiple packages provide
* the choice of init system also dictates which types of init scripts
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
> clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
> important on it?
Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompatabilities.
Cheers,
Paul
--
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:15:02 -0400
Joey Hess wrote:
> I do wish that some of the .. energy .. seen in these threads could be
> used for something more interesting. For example, find a way to detect
> touch screen systems, on which xfce is *not* pleasant, and don't
> install a desktop task there,
> I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
> servers.
Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Thomas Goirand dixit:
>> and at turning
>> the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible
>> upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort,
>Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have
>to fork the project (or maintain a
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
> discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
> day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
> feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>
>> Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
>> are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
>> Hurd & kFreeBSD).
>
> Not necessarily. We could also decide that whicheve
Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, 17:32:30 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
> On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
> > change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
>
> Other desktop environments either are reimpleme
As a matter of personal preference I would like to see something other than
gnome as default. I've had much better luck converting users from windows,
specifically older and middle aged users, with xfce or lxde.
But this conversation really goes back to the init conversation. On which I
suggest we
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:36:08PM +0200, Marko Randjelovic wrote:
> Not quite, xz is also slower than gzip in decompression, cca 3 times,
> which is not neglectable on slow machines, especially when installing
> large sets of packages.
This is incorrect. xz -[012] is way better in terms of decom
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> *Siiigh*, this is a decision that has project-wide implications
> by setting the project's direction, and even if the consititution grants
> the tech-ctte this power it's precisely here where a GR would be the most
> fair opti
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:07:09 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> • On a VM, I might want to run very low-consuming software only, to lower
> the cost of separating things into VMs of their own. (I’ll be writing a
> syslog dæmon some day because sysklogd (three processes, c’mon!) is now
> remove
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
> change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
Other desktop environments either are reimplementing bits of systemd or
is having some more or less weird bugs related
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
