Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mark Hindley
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, m...@kayg.org,
ope...@packages.debian.org sysvi...@packages.debian.org
* Package name: sysd-openrc
Version : Unversioned upstream
Upstream Author : K Gopal Krishna
* URL
That’s interesting though - could we use GNU shepherd to:
a) support kFreeBSD?
b) automatically translate systemd units to sheep(?) (limited subset might work)
The other alternative is OpenRC - here’s the same question - could we have
systemd units as authoritative definition and have OpenRC
e made so that interested people can pick
> up the work now and not only complain later.
Please also consider that OpenRC is in Debian, and well maintained.
OpenRC is a very good alternative to sysv-rc, and it supports old-style
sysv-rc init scripts (with LSB headers).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Package: initscripts
Version: 2.88dsf-59.8
Severity: important
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-CC: 844...@bugs.debian.org,
pkg-sysvinit-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org,
openrc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Hello guys,
I find a simple way to fix an OpenRC bug [1] by updating
El Wed, 4 de Jun 2014 a las 11:47 AM, Thomas Goirand
escribió:
On 06/04/2014 02:50 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
All I've tested so far is
inside my test vm, where it works fine. I'd love to have it on my
work
laptop, if I just had a replacement for policykit.
There's nobody currently wo
On 06/05/2014 12:17 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> The current plan was to have the interpreter (of runscripts) called
> openrc-run, separated from the rest of OpenRC, so it could be used when
> using sysv-rc too. In that way, we could start aggressively replacing
> sysv-rc scripts when J
On 06/04/2014 02:50 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 11:19 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> oh and ... no systemd, so it can run on non-linux ports! :)
>
> On that note, how are things with OpenRC.
Not great. I have not enough time for it. OpenStack (with the recent
I
On 2014-02-13 9:30, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Hello List,
I have jsut noticed that OpenRC is in expimental:
will it be ready for Jessie ?
You might want to direct that question to the maintainers; it's not
debian-devel's decision.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
Le jeudi, 13 février 2014, 10.30:16 Jerome BENOIT a écrit :
> I have jsut noticed that OpenRC is in expimental:
> will it be ready for Jessie ?
I don't see why not, but this would be best answered by the OpenRC
maintainers, hereby CC'ing their list. Please discuss that ther
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 10:30 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I have jsut noticed that OpenRC is in expimental:
> will it be ready for Jessie ?
Hopefully it will. It is currently in active development.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debia
Hello List,
I have jsut noticed that OpenRC is in expimental:
will it be ready for Jessie ?
Jerome
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f
On 02/12/2014 04:10 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Wasn't there some plan to have OpenRC look for its "runscripts" in a
> parallel directory alongside init.d as well as in init.d itself, and
> treat /etc/openrc-init.d/foo (or whatever) as a replacement for
> /etc/init.d/f
On 02/11/2014 09:53 PM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> The discussions on init system have discovered much energy of
> developers and users,
> so I think they are able to use that energy to support multiple systems :-)
No, please don't. I'd rather have other DDs use this energy and
help me (and paultag) go
The discussions on init system have discovered much energy of
developers and users,
so I think they are able to use that energy to support multiple systems :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.deb
On 11/02/14 15:19, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Yes, that's my proposal, and as well deprecate sysv-rc in the favor of
> OpenRC, and allow OpenRC runscript files *only* if there's support for
> the default init system (because this way the default init system will
> not use
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 03:29:28AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 25, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > Whatever you have decided about Linux only, this is relevant
> > information. Debian is about versatility in the Unix/Posix way, not any
> No, it's not. Next.
Does the NEXT OS still exist? SCNR
On Jan 25, Svante Signell wrote:
> Whatever you have decided about Linux only, this is relevant
> information. Debian is about versatility in the Unix/Posix way, not any
No, it's not. Next.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hey Svante,
Svante Signell writes:
> Good news: openrc now boots fine on GNU/Hurd with a patched sysvinit,
> see #721917
Good job!
> and soon to be updated patches of openrc (0.12.4+20131230-7)
side note: 0.12.4+20131230-7 is already in tree
http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/op
Hey Svante,
Svante Signell writes:
> Good news: openrc now boots fine on GNU/Hurd with a patched sysvinit,
> see #721917
Good job!
> and soon to be updated patches of openrc (0.12.4+20131230-7)
side note: 0.12.4+20131230-7 is already in tree
http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/op
E SOFTWARE solution (not a locked-in one)!
Package: openrc
Version: 0.12.4+20131230-7
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Usertags: hurd
Hi, the recent patches 0100-GNU-Hurd_PATH_MAX_and_defined.patch and
0110-GNU-Hurd_add-missing-files.patch enables a successful build of
openrc for GNU/Hurd. However,
seems like this mail was not delivered??
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 14:38 -0500, Julián Moreno Patiño wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Good news, I see it there:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/openrc.html
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openrc&suite=experimental
Good
severity 721917 important
thanks
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 14:38 -0500, Julián Moreno Patiño wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Good news, I see it there:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/openrc.html
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openrc&suite=experimental
Good news: op
Hello,
Good news, I see it there:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/openrc.html
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openrc&suite=experimental
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
--
Julián Moreno Patiño
Debian Developer
.''`. Debian GNU/{Linux,KfreeBSD}
: :' : Fre
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:22:54PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> How come OpenRC is still not available?
The binary name `rc' was taken by src:rc, so zigo was working with the
Gentoo upstream folks on fixing this together, so there'd be little (to
no) delta.
I very much appreciate
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 01:49 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> After rebuilding ifupdown, sysvinit, udev and openssh, I could install
> OpenRC normally, as I was used to. Hoping that source-full uploads will
> happen before I fix the /sbin/rc issue, otherwise I'll ask for BINnmu.
How
;> sysv-rc if a package contains an Upstart job, because that relies on a
>>> patch to invoke-rc.d so that sysvinit compatibility works properly. If
>>> OpenRC ships a version of invoke-rc.d, it'll probably need a similar
>>> patch and to have debhelper adjusted. I
gt; patch to invoke-rc.d so that sysvinit compatibility works properly. If
>> OpenRC ships a version of invoke-rc.d, it'll probably need a similar
>> patch and to have debhelper adjusted. I already did this for file-rc,
>> so perhaps you want to clone-and-hack my patches for O
east 18 years.
>>
>> Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the "rc"
>> package is why you saw this immediately! :)
>>
>> Though that's annoying, because upstream must extensively uses "rc". All
>> OpenRC commands are in f
remember which one) which insist on having sysv-rc installed.
>
> This is because dh_installinit generates a versioned dependency on
> sysv-rc if a package contains an Upstart job, because that relies on a
> patch to invoke-rc.d so that sysvinit compatibility works properly. If
> Op
remember which one) which insist on having sysv-rc installed.
>
> This is because dh_installinit generates a versioned dependency on
> sysv-rc if a package contains an Upstart job, because that relies on a
> patch to invoke-rc.d so that sysvinit compatibility works properly.
Thanks for t
talled.
This is because dh_installinit generates a versioned dependency on
sysv-rc if a package contains an Upstart job, because that relies on a
patch to invoke-rc.d so that sysvinit compatibility works properly. If
OpenRC ships a version of invoke-rc.d, it'll probably need a similar
patch and t
27;ve been working on other parts, and
didn't feel like I needed to do that upgrade right away).
For those who don't know him, heroxbd was the co-mentor for the OpenRC
GSoC project, and is also upstream for OpenRC. He helped a lot the
student this summer. I'd like to publicly thanks
Thomas Goirand writes:
> I'm very happy to tell everyone that this is *FIXED* !!!
>
> http://youtu.be/zoNoi8BgQjs
>
> :D :D :D
Wow. That's absolutely great zigo!
Although the "Caching service dependencies" seems to be a regression to
me months ago, where the cache should be generated only once
On 10/30/2013 01:38 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 09:34 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:47:56 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> Note that OpenRC already works on some (non-Debian) BSD platforms, and
>>> that it s
On 10/29/2013 09:34 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:47:56 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Note that OpenRC already works on some (non-Debian) BSD platforms, and
>> that it should be trivial to have it to build on kFreeBSD and Hurd,
>
>
On 10/29/2013 03:57 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
>> this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd
>> be nice i
er a *shadow* survey (using
each to see its interface and features, by performing service
add/remove/start/stop) of various init systems, including sysvinit +
sysv-rc, Upstart, systemd, OpenRC, SMF and launchd. It is biased, not
mature and started from the biased
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.htm
On 07/15/2013 01:37 PM, heroxbd wrote:
I can visualize that within two months we will have a off-the-shelf
OpenRC package working with initscripts/sysvinit vanilla offering modern
features like cgroups, at users' choice.
Good, I'll take your word on that.
Adrian
--
.''
ng finished. This fact is quoted by people to infer
OpenRC is not serious and not for production.
They are two things and should not be mixed. I am only going to respond
to the first question here.
On my side, I am offering to package OpenRC. I did not have a deep
understanding of Debian packaging
On 07/14/2013 11:40 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> yet there isn't any fully working implementation
>> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
>
> one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
> that's still not the case
Hi,
On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > yet there isn't any fully working implementation
> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
that's still not the case, despite 684396 being announced here a year ago.
cheers
There seem to be a few new discussions about these possible solutions
As well as the traditional init scripts, I've worked with systemd on
Fedora and SMF on Solaris. Out of all possible solutions, I don't have
any strong feelings about which solution Debian should go with at this
stage.
Howeve
On 05/24/2013 04:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 02:19 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
>> What is the status of packaging OpenRC for Debian? Is there a group
>> doing that, is help needed?
>
> Ok, if you ask...
>
> Currently, the package can build and install
On 05/24/2013 02:19 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
> What is the status of packaging OpenRC for Debian? Is there a group
> doing that, is help needed?
Ok, if you ask...
Currently, the package can build and install, at least on Linux flavors
of Debian.
Once installed, it will unfortunate
Serge,
I'm in the favor of having a try with OpenRC, and see what we can do,
but here, your post is a bit naive at least in some cases. Let me
explain why.
On 09/05/2012 11:47 AM, Serge wrote:
>> I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their
>> o
* more developers and maintainers means better debian
Anyway, I *guess* I understand your point. You afraid that *if* this new
`openrc` is accepted *and* widely used in debian *and* other package start
depending on it badly *and* its maintainer will abandon it, then we may
have a problem. So b
On 09/02/12 20:43, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Hi!
> Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
> because I don't have it from a "official" Gentoo source):
> I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
> systemd,
No.
> and fin
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a "official" Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd, and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo switches to
systemd from OpenRC and
Le samedi 01 septembre 2012 à 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
> feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times smaller),
Code size is a compelling argument only with the same set of features.
Which is not the case.
> to
swer every user need.
>
> So, if user needs to see something in debian repository then being
> universal means having it in repository. :)
And what kind of users need a different init system?
> > One good init system can answer all our needs, while four bad ones will
> > certainly no
Hi again,
On Sonntag, 2. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> I am completely calm. And I do apologise, I am sorry for suggesting that
> somebody steps down from the project. That was wrong, admitted.
thanks! (a lot.)
> However, for the statement above, calling everything not in line with
>
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Svante Signell wrote:
> >On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
> >> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
...
> >> > As for Debian not being universal, this
Hey Svante,
On Samstag, 1. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
> like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
> Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
Svante, maybe you should
+++ Faidon Liambotis [2012-08-11 03:48 +0300]:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For exa
On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
>> Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
>> the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
>
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
> the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it have all of those features? Should it require support from oth
Le Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 09:02:06PM +0200, Svante Signell a écrit :
>
> Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
> like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
> Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
In general I am for d
Svante Signell wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
>> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
>>
>> > As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
>> > But toy ports and toy init systems
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
>
> > As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
> > But toy ports and toy init systems are part of what makes Debian
Le 31 août 2012 10:06, "Josselin Mouette" a écrit :
>
> Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
> > 2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such
> > > as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
>
On 09/01/12 04:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
>> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
>> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
>> have Debian forgotten and dead. S
On 09/01/2012 04:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> There should be at least some compelling technical arguments for
> OpenRC.
There are, and they have been listed already.
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5
.
> If I was an employee of Debian Inc, and I was paid to spend my 40 hours/week
> to my company, then you could tell me "don't mess around openrc, focus on
> upstart, that's a chief's order" (that may work for RedHat). But Debian
> does not pay me, and noone can
we will have to change stuff archive wide, whatever
decision we take.
> But
> toy ports and toy init systems are part of what makes Debian less
> universal: being the universal OS doesn’t mean accepting every piece of
> shit
I'm not sure what you call "every piece of shit"
f Debian Inc, and I was paid to spend my 40 hours/week
to my company, then you could tell me "don't mess around openrc, focus on
upstart, that's a chief's order" (that may work for RedHat). But Debian
does not pay me, and noone can tell me what to do.
When I come and
ementation.
Not necessary. It's ITP, not RFP. That may mean that there would be someone
who will send patches to other maintainers to fix their init scripts, that
do not obey debian standards. If they do obey standards but still don't
work under openrc then it's a bug either in debian
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> One good init system can answer all our needs, while four bad ones will
> certainly not.
I fully agree.
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we shouldn't be
messing around with it. Focus on the best solution, peri
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
> 2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
> > as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this point.
>
> If it's about ju
not installed by default)
2. It has something, that is not provided by other packages,
meaning, it makes someone happy. (!)
3. There's someone willing to maintain it and fix the bugs.
As long as all 3 points are true — why not? ;)
I would apply these points to every ITP, not just openrc.
PS: IMH
On 08/19/2012 07:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
>> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
>> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
>> exo
On 08/10/2012 09:25 AM, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette [2012-08-09 23:15]:
>
>> And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
>> value. Linux is not about choice.
>
> Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Strong ack. I'm using open source software because I wa
On 08/10/2012 10:55 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 10, Philip Hands wrote:
>
>> Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
>> to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
> I really do not care about what the openrc develo
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We don't have a particularly good way of handling this situation right now
> other than one-off work on each package that may need to be treated
> unusually. It's a bit difficult for the maintainer to determine the
> implications for
* Ben Hutchings [120820 20:21]:
> I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
> amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
> they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
> to mean collective interests (i.e. numbers matter)
Philipp Kern writes:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
>> means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
>> should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the fai
Le lundi 20 août 2012 à 18:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
> amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
> they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
> to mean collective in
Philipp Kern writes:
> Of course, if GNOME is unused one could just remove it completely from
> those ports, but I doubt that your approach of "it's just a minute of
> work to RM it" is welcomed. (Well, the maintainers would probably like
> it, as long as there won't be bugs claiming that you hav
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:41:15PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> > wrote:
> > >Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
> > >of toy ports?
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
> > systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> > features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> > allow
> >
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> allow
> shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
In the beginning, ConsoleKit didn’t allow
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> wrote:
> >Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
> >of toy ports?
>
> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
> architec
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
> means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
> should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the failing
> port.
>
> That's abo
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
>> Michael Biebl writes:
>>
>> > If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
>> > then something is going seriously wrong.
>>
>> I've yet to see said criticism.
>
> In the abse
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> Michael Biebl writes:
>
> > If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
> > then something is going seriously wrong.
>
> I've yet to see said criticism.
In the absense of regression tests, we distribu
Michael Biebl writes:
> If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
> then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
--
|8]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On 19.08.2012 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
>> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
>> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
>> exotic
Marc Haber writes:
> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
> exotic ports to stop this derogatory, impolite and cont
Marc Haber wrote:
> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
There are people who use their time doing things like hopping across a
continent on one foot. That is a lot of work, but it's not part
On 12942 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
> Does it? Who said so?
> But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
> down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
>
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:14:22 +0800, Aron Xu
wrote:
>For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
>behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
>so. I'm not using those ports everyday but I respect their passion and
>efforts.
Amen. I find it derogatory to
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:47:43 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
>Does it? Who said so?
"We". In the same way you say "we" when you claim to be talking about
Debian and tr
On Aug 18, Aron Xu wrote:
> For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
> behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
> so.
I am not, but I understand that arguing about this is much easier than
arguing that incomplete ports used by a few dozen people
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
> Does it? Who said so?
> But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
> down the OS which people
On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
> architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
ports.
--
ciao,
Ma
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
>écrit :
>> What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
>> work.
>
>Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
On 13.08.2012 00:50, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 12, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
> Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
> it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
It is laughab
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Just to bring this back on topic, if the initial tests of OpenRC
> show it to be viable and that it's possible to upgrade seamlessly
> from sysv-rc, then I would propose to drop sysv-rc entirely, rather
> than having a choice here.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I did start the initial Debian
> > packaging work last night though.
>
> Is this available in a Git somewhere?
It's here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/openrc.git
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I did start the initial Debian
> packaging work last night though.
>
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists
On 08/13/2012 05:20 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> As one wrote previously: mdev and OpenRC lack hostile upstreams! :)
>>
> They also lack solving large parts of the problem space.
>
I don't think anyone denies that fact. Hopefully, this will change.
Thomas
1 - 100 of 457 matches
Mail list logo
