Svante Signell writes ("Re: upgrades must not change the installed init system
[was: Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing]"):
> As you can see from that bug report the systemd maintainers overrides
> every attempt to change severity of that bug to wishlist and won
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 13:04 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 11/09/14 14:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 21:36 +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Debian has a good and hard-earned reputation for not messing up
> >> sysadmins' changes; upgrading to systemd - h
On 11/09/14 14:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 21:36 +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> [...]
>> Debian has a good and hard-earned reputation for not messing up
>> sysadmins' changes; upgrading to systemd - however wonderful it is (and
>> I confess to having no opinion on that) - withou
On Wednesday, 10 de September de 2014 21:26:50 Matthias Urlichs escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Langasek:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:28:36PM +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> > > What about cases when init scripts doesn't come from any package but
> > > are crafted by hand?
> >
> > It's straightforward
On Thursday, 11 de September de 2014 08:00:57 Marc Haber escribió:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:04:07 -0300, Martinx - ?
>
> wrote:
> > Also, during Debian 8 installation, please, provide an "altinit" option (
> >
> >http://pyro.eu.org/debian/pool/main/d/debian-altinit/ ?), so, people can
> >choo
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:58:11 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
wrote:
>Marc Haber:
>> sysvinit init scripts will suffer heavy bitrot in jessie+1.
>>
>Possibly. But let's get Jessie out the door first …
So that it'll be completely impossible to roll back?
Not that I seriously believe that we got the balls
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> On 09/09/14 22:34, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> I truly believe that making systemd the default without asking the user
>> to test it first, is going to cause more breakage and angry users than
>> doing it the other way.
>
> s/making systemd the defaul
Hi,
Marc Haber:
> sysvinit init scripts will suffer heavy bitrot in jessie+1.
>
Possibly. But let's get Jessie out the door first …
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:27:58 +0200, Thorsten Glaser
wrote:
>Nobody says jessie+1 will not permit running sysvinit any more,
>and the CTTE rulings explicitly did not touch that topic which
>implies some amount of scepsis.
sysvinit init scripts will suffer heavy bitrot in jessie+1.
Greetings
Marc
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Debian has a good and hard-earned reputation for not messing up
> sysadmins' changes
Agreed. This is about the only thing I can currently use to
argue for use of Debian over *buntu in some places.
> So, is it actually feasible to provide such a prompt?
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> We could delay the transition-on-upgrade by one release, but the
> migration from sysvinit to systemd on a Jessie -> Jessie+1 upgrade will
> probably end up less tested (though systemd itself would probably be
> more tested by then).
Nobody says jessi
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> 4) Upgrade to systemd silently without asking the user AND add a grub
> entry to use old init
These are the Linux bootloaders I came up within less than
five minutes of searching the ’net:
• Acronis OS Selector
• AiR-Boot
• AKernelLoader
• AMIBOOT
• AP
Daniel Dickinson writes:
> I will add that for a distribution that claims to be about it's users,
> the systemd attitude of "We're *going* to use systemd so 'suck it up
> Buttercup' really stinks at a social level.
Debians' decision to support systemd already violates Debians' social
contract.
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 21:36 +, Nick Phillips wrote:
[...]
> Debian has a good and hard-earned reputation for not messing up
> sysadmins' changes; upgrading to systemd - however wonderful it is (and
> I confess to having no opinion on that) - without at least a debconf
> prompt of a reasonable p
Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> On 2014-09-09 18:23:58, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > Together with the /lib/sysvinit/init fallback binary in sysvinit and
> > > (and optionally my patch getting merged for grub [1]), this should
> > > provide for a hopefully seamless upgrade experience.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:04:07 -0300, Martinx - ?
wrote:
> Also, during Debian 8 installation, please, provide an "altinit" option (
>http://pyro.eu.org/debian/pool/main/d/debian-altinit/ ?), so, people can
>choose between systemd / sysvinit (before 1st boot). I know that it seems
>easy to just
On 11/09/14 12:10 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
> I will add that for a distribution that claims to be about it's users,
> the systemd attitude of "We're *going* to use systemd so 'suck it up
> Buttercup' really stinks at a social level.
Especially since 'Free' is supposed to be 'as in Freedom no
For the heck of it, I will add that if in my job I pushed out crap like
Network Manager and Pulseaudio at the time of introduction as 'the
saviour of the Linux desktop' as a production release I would have fired
long ago.
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/09/14 12:10 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
> I will
I will add that for a distribution that claims to be about it's users,
the systemd attitude of "We're *going* to use systemd so 'suck it up
Buttercup' really stinks at a social level.
Not to mention, as many have pointed out, transition to systemd is *not*
going to be painless and without problem
Hi!
Yes, please... I vote +1 for *not silently replace* sysvinit by systemd,
when upgrading from Debian 7, to 8.
Also, during Debian 8 installation, please, provide an "altinit" option (
http://pyro.eu.org/debian/pool/main/d/debian-altinit/ ?), so, people can
choose between systemd / sysvinit (
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 18:37 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 17:44 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 10 de September de 2014 03:12:16 Ben Hutchings escribió:
> > > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 21:24 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:28:36PM +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> > What about cases when init scripts doesn't come from any package but are
> > crafted by hand?
>
> It's straightforward to check for init scripts that are not owned by any
> packages.
>
… and besides, systemd
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:28:36PM +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> What about cases when init scripts doesn't come from any package but are
> crafted by hand?
> Those can not be easily detected and compared for changes, as they are not
> coming from any package and they may (and in some cases are)
On 2014-09-09 18:23:58, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Together with the /lib/sysvinit/init fallback binary in sysvinit and
> > (and optionally my patch getting merged for grub [1]), this should
> > provide for a hopefully seamless upgrade experience.
>
> Agreed, this seems like t
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 17:44 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 de September de 2014 03:12:16 Ben Hutchings escribió:
> > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 21:24 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55 Tollef Fog Heen escribió:
> > > > ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
On Wednesday, 10 de September de 2014 03:12:16 Ben Hutchings escribió:
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 21:24 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55 Tollef Fog Heen escribió:
> > > ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> > >
> > > > But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have serve
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014, at 04:12, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 21:24 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55 Tollef Fog Heen escribió:
> > > ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> > >
> > > > But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locat
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 21:24 +0100, Noel Torres wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55 Tollef Fog Heen escribió:
> > ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> >
> > > But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locations
> > > that are only accessible via ssh) and the machine do
Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 09.09.2014 17:15, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
> > Having only some systems switch to a different init system on upgrade
> > seems potentially confusing to me.
>
> Agreed. We definitely should switch the machines on upgrades. There is a
> good reason why we also did it when
On 09/09/14 23:17, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> That way of testing is completely unreliable when we are talking about
>> > low level stuff (kernel/udev/systemd).
> No, it's not. It is able to emulate most of the concerns people are
> talking about in this thread. Nobody has so far showed up and bee
]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> On 09/09/14 22:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> >
> >> But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locations
> >> that are only accessible via ssh) and the machine don't boots properly
> >> you can find yourself in tr
On 09/09/14 22:34, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> I truly believe that making systemd the default without asking the user
> to test it first, is going to cause more breakage and angry users than
> doing it the other way.
s/making systemd the default/replacing the user init system with systemd
On 09/09/14 22:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
>
>> But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locations
>> that are only accessible via ssh) and the machine don't boots properly
>> you can find yourself in trouble.
>
> Then surely you test the upgrade
On Tuesday, 9 de September de 2014 21:18:55 Tollef Fog Heen escribió:
> ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
>
> > But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locations
> > that are only accessible via ssh) and the machine don't boots properly
> > you can find yourself in trouble.
>
> Th
]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> But if you don't (Is not uncommon to have servers on remote locations
> that are only accessible via ssh) and the machine don't boots properly
> you can find yourself in trouble.
Then surely you test the upgrade before making it live, using kvm
-snapshot or simila
* Michael Biebl [140909 11:43]:
> Am 09.09.2014 17:15, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
> > Having only some systems switch to a different init system on upgrade
> > seems potentially confusing to me.
>
> Agreed. We definitely should switch the machines on upgrades. There is a
> good reason why we also
* Mathieu Parent [140909 09:15]:
> 2014-09-09 13:46 GMT+02:00 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez :
> [...]
> > So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
> >
> > 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
> > 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
> > 3) Upgrade to s
* Ansgar Burchardt [140909 11:16]:
> On 09/09/2014 16:59, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I don't believe we should switch init systems on upgrade without at least
> > a prompt,
>
> I think there are good arguments for both switching to the new default
> and not:
Perhaps, but not without giving the sysa
On 09/09/14 15:14, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> 2014-09-09 13:46 GMT+02:00 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez :
> [...]
>> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
>>
>> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
>> 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
>> 3) Upgrade to
Am 09.09.2014 17:15, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
> Having only some systems switch to a different init system on upgrade
> seems potentially confusing to me.
Agreed. We definitely should switch the machines on upgrades. There is a
good reason why we also did it when switching to dependency based boo
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> On 09/09/2014 17:01, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The original plan was to have the question owned by some package that
>> could then switch the init symlink from one implementation to another.
>> That way, no abort is required. I'm not sure if that survived contact
>> with
On 09/09/2014 17:01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Danjean writes:
>> I agree with your analysis. However, how do you think we can ask the
>> user ? We can have a debconf question. However, whatever the answer is,
>> we must not return an error (i.e. aborting the upgrade). It is really a
>> pain t
On 09/09/2014 16:59, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
>> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
>
>> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
>> 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
>> 3) Upgrade to systemd silently without as
Vincent Danjean writes:
> I agree with your analysis. However, how do you think we can ask the
> user ? We can have a debconf question. However, whatever the answer is,
> we must not return an error (i.e. aborting the upgrade). It is really a
> pain to recover when this occurs.
The original plan
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> Most of our users don't care as long as their machines continue to work
> as expected after an upgrade.
> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
> 2) Upgrade to systemd after a
Samuel Thibault writes:
> When I got "upgraded" to systemd on july, my system was completely
> misbehaving for several reasons related to my configuration:
> - I had an ISO mount in my fstab, whose file didn't exist any more,
> sysvinit never complained about it, systemd just stopped at boot.
S
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, at 15:14, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> 4) Upgrade to systemd silently without asking the user AND add a grub
> entry to use old init
I like this approach very much since it's least intrusive to the upgrade
process, but provides a emergency fallback in default installation.
O.
--
2014-09-09 15:14 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Parent :
> 2014-09-09 13:46 GMT+02:00 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez :
> [...]
>> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
>>
>> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
>> 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
>> 3) Upgrade
2014-09-09 13:46 GMT+02:00 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez :
[...]
> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
>
> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
> 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
> 3) Upgrade to systemd silently without asking the user.
4) Upg
Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 13:10:48 +0200, a écrit :
> > And I'm saying that I don't think this is an isolated case,
>
> And I'm saying that all we have is anecdotal evidence
Our uni lab has switched to systemd, 20% of the machines do not boot.
The admin is currently looking at what the diff
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 14:11:28 +0200, a écrit :
> I have made a quick poll among various people here and there, there is
> no real consensus, either on switching to systemd by default or keeping
> with sysvinit by default. So it seems to me a question during upgrade is
> needed.
(mor
Matthias Urlichs, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 13:49:54 +0200, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault:
> > > So please fill a bug for every breakage you will encounter, so it
> > > can be either fixed or documented.
> >
> > There will be dozens of them then. Will they really be fixed in time for
> > Jessie?
> >
> We
On 09/09/2014 13:46, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> So, when upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie, we have three options:
>
> 1) Keep the user init system (sysvinit most probably)
> 2) Upgrade to systemd after asking the user.
> 3) Upgrade to systemd silently without asking the user.
[...]
> I und
On 09/09/2014 13:10, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> And I'm saying that all we have is anecdotal evidence and we all
> know what we step into when we run our systems on jessie or sid.
> So please fill a bug for every breakage you will encounter, so it
> can be either fixed or documented.
Did you look at the
Hi,
Samuel Thibault:
> > So please fill a bug for every breakage you will encounter, so it
> > can be either fixed or documented.
>
> There will be dozens of them then. Will they really be fixed in time for
> Jessie?
>
We don't know yet. Would you rather have bugs which are not even reported,
an
On 09/09/14 13:10, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> > I believe most our users prefer to stay with sysvinit when upgrading from
>> > wheezy
> And I believe that most our users don't care. But I as a maintainer
> and operator of several daemons I really do care to have as most
> unified environment for debugg
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 13:19:31 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I believe most our users prefer to stay with sysvinit when upgrading from
> > > wheezy
> >
> > And I believe that most our users don't care.
>
> I believe most of our users care about an upgrade to Jessie that doesn't
> bring re
Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 13:10:48 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, at 11:54, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 11:47:38 +0200, a écrit :
> > > And you are saying that you can do all those tweaks, but you cannot
> > > pin systemd-sysv to not install?
> >
> > N
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, at 11:54, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 11:47:38 +0200, a écrit :
> > And you are saying that you can do all those tweaks, but you cannot
> > pin systemd-sysv to not install?
>
> No, I'm saying that if I hadn't noticed "systemd" among the upgrades, I
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, at 09:11, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried to
> > implement auto-migration of the old default mailer's configuration to the
> > new one. Also, we didn't switch to a different default mailer because the
> > new one o
Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 11:47:38 +0200, a écrit :
> switch the default init to systemd as Debian
> maintainers who would like to keep their sanity would do.
I have lost my sanity about system boot & shutdown since when I have
switched to systemd. Really.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Ondřej Surý, le Tue 09 Sep 2014 11:47:38 +0200, a écrit :
> And you are saying that you can do all those tweaks, but you cannot
> pin systemd-sysv to not install?
No, I'm saying that if I hadn't noticed "systemd" among the upgrades, I
would have gotten all these changes all of a sudden without ask
> You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried to
> implement auto-migration of the old default mailer's configuration to the
> new one. Also, we didn't switch to a different default mailer because the
> new one offered a heap of features and infrastructure which the other
>
Hi Jonas,
On Montag, 8. September 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I did not file a bugreport about that - where could I?
upgrade-reports seems to be the pseudo package you want. See
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=upgrade-reports :-)
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Des
El lun, 8 de sep 2014 a las 9:07 , Matthias Urlichs
escribió:
Hi,
Vincent Danjean:
If I recall correctly, when Debian switched the default MTA,
upgrades
did not change the already installed.
You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried
to
implement auto-migration
Quoting Vincent Danjean (2014-09-08 21:37:14)
> On 08/09/2014 18:07, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Vincent Danjean:
>>> If I recall correctly, when Debian switched the default MTA,
>>> upgrades did not change the already installed.
>>
>> You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:07:18 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
wrote:
>Vincent Danjean:
>> If I recall correctly, when Debian switched the default MTA, upgrades
>> did not change the already installed.
>
>You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried to
>implement auto-migration of the
On 08/09/2014 18:07, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Vincent Danjean:
>> If I recall correctly, when Debian switched the default MTA, upgrades
>> did not change the already installed.
>
> You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried to
> implement auto-migration of the o
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Note also that a few of those things (udev, adduser, and
> libdevmapper1.02.1 for example) are likely to be on any non-chroot system
> already since they're either dependencies of other things (such as grub
> for libdevmapper1.02.1) or
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow.
This is a complete waste of time and I expect better of you in particular.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Hi,
Vincent Danjean:
> If I recall correctly, when Debian switched the default MTA, upgrades
> did not change the already installed.
You cannot have an MTA without configuring it, and nobody even tried to
implement auto-migration of the old default mailer's configuration to the
new one. Also, we
On 08/09/2014 15:27, Noel Torres wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 23:45:12 David Weinehall escribió:
>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Noel Torres wrote:
> So we are clearly failing to f
On 08/09/14 14:44, Noel Torres wrote:
> Example: having EMC Networker server softare for backups in a sysvinit
> machine
> is (relatively) easy, because the scripts for starting and stopping the
> services are (quite) standard (but very complicated) sysv scripts.
systemd is compatible with LSB
On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 16:11:02 Matthias Urlichs escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Chris Bannister:
> > > If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just
> > > tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a
> > > problem) than an "oh dear, it's so dangerous that
On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 23:45:12 David Weinehall escribió:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Noel Torres wrote:
> > >> So we are clearly failing to follow the least surprise (for the user)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/08/2014 at 02:05 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm
>> talking upgrades here, not new installs.
>
> I have no clue
* Josselin Mouette , 2014-09-08, 10:58:
Excuse me? Are you trying to use the fact that you and your stupid
friends are trolling about systemd all day long in order to justify
your own rants?
And I thought you couldn’t get any lower. You have a very good shovel.
OTOH, a hydraulic excavator mu
Adam Borowski wrote:
> Noel Torres writes:
> > So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take
extra pain to
> > keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go?
>
> I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1] that wa
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking
> upgrades here, not new installs.
I have no clue why we are continuing to discuss this. The ctte
resolution says that "the default init system for Linux archit
El dom, 7 de sep 2014 a las 3:45 , David Weinehall
escribió:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
> Noel Torres wrote:
>> So we are clearly failing to follow the least surprise (for the
user) path.
>>
>>
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Noel Torres wrote:
> >> So we are clearly failing to follow the least surprise (for the user) path.
> >>
> >> Should not logind depend on systemd-shim | systemd-sysv instea
Hey.
On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 14:08 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Steve, as long as bugs like [1] are not fixed in systemd-shim, I'm not
> going to make it the first alternative. Installing a half-broken logind
> whould be a disservice to our users.
Kinda strange to use *that* as an argument, while
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:30:11 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen
wrote:
>You make the assumption that there's not been an tries to resolve this,
>which is wrong. As for security, well, I have a keyscript that unlocks
>my boot drive just fine, but handled through initramfs, not systemd.
Those tries are invisi
Hi,
Chris Bannister:
> > If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell
> > people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than
> > an "oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default"
> > message. :-/
>
> Surely, it should be an
Hi,
On Samstag, 6. September 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> No. I expect them all to continue running just peachy fine and seamlessly.
> I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and
> strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> On the other ha
]] Marc Haber
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
> wrote:
> >Marc Haber:
> >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> >> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} sub
On 2014-09-07, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And
> I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way.
I apparantly like pain. or maybe s/ful/less/ is the appropriate reading.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.deb
On 2014-09-07, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking
> upgrades here, not new installs.
I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And
I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way.
I do want my systems to look the
Am 07.09.2014 14:08, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> Steve, as long as bugs like [1] are not fixed in systemd-shim, I'm not
>> going to make it the first alternative. Installing a half-broken logind
>> whould be a disservice to our users.
>
> Uhm, did you
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Steve, as long as bugs like [1] are not fixed in systemd-shim, I'm not
> going to make it the first alternative. Installing a half-broken logind
> whould be a disservice to our users.
Uhm, did you read this subthread at all?
Let me try to summarise:
At
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Zack Weinberg:
> > I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure
> > that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to
> > Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out ther
Hi,
Zack Weinberg:
> I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure
> that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to
> Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out there; it
If we do decide that a default switch is unsafe for too many systems, t
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
wrote:
>Marc Haber:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
>> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> >> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
>> >> to switch to
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because,
>> frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense
>> whatsoever.
> This is exactly the thing I don't agree with.
> I think _new installs_ of Jessie should use systemd
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 02:20:33AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 00:05:59 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Sep 06, Noel Torres wrote:
> > > It is just wrong to have dependencies on the init system.
> > > If you need dbus, you should Depend on dbus, and systemd should
> > >
On Sep 07, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > This is why most of these dependencies are on libpam-systemd, which does
> > not depend on systemd.
> That's incorrect:
What I meant was "does not depend on systemd being PID 1".
Are you happy now?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatur
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 00:05:59 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 06, Noel Torres wrote:
> > It is just wrong to have dependencies on the init system.
> > If you need dbus, you should Depend on dbus, and systemd should
> > Provides dbus.
> This is why most of these dependencies are on libpam-sy
On Sep 06, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my
> pbuilder chroot:
To be fair, most of these packages (adduser, kmod, udev and their
dependencies, for a start) would be installed anyway on a normal system
which is not a minimal chroot.
If
On Sep 06, Noel Torres wrote:
> It is just wrong to have dependencies on the init system.
> If you need dbus, you should Depend on dbus, and systemd should
> Provides dbus.
This is why most of these dependencies are on libpam-systemd, which does
not depend on systemd.
As usual, people complain
Sven Joachim writes:
> On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a
>> detailed analysis of this posted a while back? My vague recollection
>> was a number more on the order of a quarter of that, and with most of
>> those be
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
