25.10.2013 20:47, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
[]
#717731
upower: authentification is required for hibernating while other users are
logged in
http://bugs.debian.org/717731
#717554
systemd: authentification is required for hibernating while other users are
logged in
http://bugs.debian.org/717554
B
> My understanding is that the _kernel_ side wants to change the cgroup
> API, and this means that at least in the long term current cgroup-using
> applications will need to change in any case (possibly by using systemd
> APIs instead). I'm not familiar with the specific case of lxc, but I
> really
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 08:34 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 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
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
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 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
Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, 14:29:54 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
> init system.
>
> Pros:
> - more features
> - stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
> - being more similar to one of the other relevant distributions (R
On Fri, October 25, 2013 15:09, Neil Williams wrote:
> I disagree that this is achievable as a single switch. Backports spring
> to mind, security updates too will have to retain support for the init
> system in use in stable currently where that support existed in the
> package being backported at
2013/10/25 Neil Williams :
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:29:54 +0200
> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
>> It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
>> init system.
>>
>> Pros:
>> - more features
>> - stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
>> - being more simi
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:29:54 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
> init system.
>
> Pros:
> - more features
> - stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
> - being more similar to one of the other relevant dist
Let the war begin... ;)
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 14:29 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Pros:
> - stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
How far is this:
https://wiki.debian.org/AdvancedStartupShutdownWithMultilayeredBlockDevices
really supported now?
> - things like gnome become easier to p
It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
init system.
Pros:
- more features
- stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
- being more similar to one of the other relevant distributions (RHEL or
Ubuntu)
- things like gnome become easier to package
Cons:
- so
12 matches
Mail list logo
