Re: Debian systemd survey

On 2013-06-02 11:10:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Michael Biebl writes: > > Am 02.06.2013 18:59, schrieb Russ Allbery: > > >> There's really no reason to have something like an /etc/default setting > >> for that, the way there is for the rsyncd init script. You can just > >> edit that directly

Re: Debian systemd survey

Tollef Fog Heen writes: > ]] Russ Allbery >> There's really no reason to have something like an /etc/default >> setting for that, the way there is for the rsyncd init script. You >> can just edit that directly (well, it's systemd, so you have to copy >> it into /etc and make a new version and t

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 03/06/2013 00:33, Simon McVittie wrote: > [...] > The current upstream systemd has an "include" mechanism by which the > unit in /etc can say "copy all keys from the upstream version in /lib, > then set Foo=bar", and also a mechanism by which individual keys in a > unit can be overridden by a se

Re: Debian systemd survey

]] Russ Allbery > There's really no reason to have something like an /etc/default > setting for that, the way there is for the rsyncd init script. You > can just edit that directly (well, it's systemd, so you have to copy > it into /etc and make a new version and then won't know if anything > ab

Re: Debian systemd survey

Michael Biebl writes: > Am 02.06.2013 18:59, schrieb Russ Allbery: >> There's really no reason to have something like an /etc/default setting >> for that, the way there is for the rsyncd init script. You can just >> edit that directly (well, it's systemd, so you have to copy it into >> /etc and

Re: Debian systemd survey

Russ Allbery wrote: > There's really no reason to have something like an /etc/default setting > for that, the way there is for the rsyncd init script. You can just edit > that directly (well, it's systemd, so you have to copy it into /etc and > make a new version and then won't know if anything ab

Re: Debian systemd survey

Hi Russ, Am 02.06.2013 18:59, schrieb Russ Allbery: > For example, here's the complete systemd file for rsyncd: > > [Unit] > Description=fast remote file copy program daemon > ConditionPathExists=/etc/rsyncd.conf > > [Service] > ExecStart=/usr/bin/rsync --daemon --no-detach > > [Install] > Want

Re: Debian systemd survey

Vincent Lefevre writes: > Most config files are not really user-editable under Debian. I mean: > they can be editable, but there are serious drawbacks during upgrades. > Indeed most often the user has the choice between installing the new > version (but his local changes are lost) and keeping the

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 02/06/13 13:15, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Most config files are not really user-editable under Debian. ... > So, splitting config files is a > way to avoid that, not in all cases but in most cases (this is not > specific to sysvinit, apparently just a consequence of the old > wishlist bug 32877,

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 2013-05-30 13:59:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Also, determining which flags to pass to the daemon from some other > configuration file, which is a common use of /etc/default files, is a hack > to work around the fact that an init script is not really user-editable. > We therefore move the par

Re: Debian systemd survey

Marc Haber writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> When the source of the configuration is debconf, we know exactly when >> it changes and don't need anything like inotify to know when to rebuild >> it. > Disagreed, one can change a debconf-generated file manually, thanks to > the debconf-is-not-a-reg

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:59:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Get rid of some of that complexity because it is pointless (you'll find >>> that much of it is working around inadequacies in sysvinit). > >> Explain. > >For example, all the PID file handling

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Mark Symonds wrote: > If Upstart makes it into Debian Upstart is already in Debian. > Dependency based init already works well, to replace it with a hive of bugs > does not make sense. OpenRC is the only one which claims to be reverse > compatible, > if this is

Re: Debian systemd survey

On May 28, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:27:36 -0700, Russ Allbery > wrote: >> (The shading of meaning between those two options could be clearer. I >> took it as a measure of enthusiasm and personally answered "I welcome >> systemd in Debian" because, regardles

Re: Debian systemd survey

Marc Haber writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Get rid of some of that complexity because it is pointless (you'll find >> that much of it is working around inadequacies in sysvinit). > Explain. For example, all the PID file handling is working around the inability to determine via better mechanis

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:42:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Get rid of some of that complexity because it is pointless (you'll find >that much of it is working around inadequacies in sysvinit). Explain. > Get rid of >more of it by building a static configuration from the dynamic >configuration whe

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:12:58PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > development (because unlike the systemd developers, the upstart developers > > aren't trying to sell anyone a bill of goods about how their existing units > > are perf

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > development (because unlike the systemd developers, the upstart developers > aren't trying to sell anyone a bill of goods about how their existing units > are perfect and nothing will ever need to be patched downstream). But there

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:32:59PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 30/05/13 11:19, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:10:57 -0700, Russ Allbery > > wrote: > >> Using an imperative language for a descriptive purpose is a bad mismatch > >> of tools and has been ever since the practical e

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:35:52PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > >Please leave the FUD at the door. Writing upstart jobs is not difficult; > >while there are some gotchas currently with process lifecycle (which will be > >fixed soon), there is also very complete documentation (for thes

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:32:59 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: >On 30/05/13 11:19, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:10:57 -0700, Russ Allbery >> wrote: >>> Using an imperative language for a descriptive purpose is a bad mismatch >>> of tools and has been ever since the practical effect of i

Re: Debian systemd survey

Marc Haber writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Using an imperative language for a descriptive purpose is a bad >> mismatch of tools and has been ever since the practical effect of init >> scripts has become fairly standardized. > Some init scripts in Debian build dynamic configuration before the >

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 30/05/13 11:19, Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:10:57 -0700, Russ Allbery > wrote: >> Using an imperative language for a descriptive purpose is a bad mismatch >> of tools and has been ever since the practical effect of init scripts has >> become fairly standardized. > > Some init sc

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:10:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Using an imperative language for a descriptive purpose is a bad mismatch >of tools and has been ever since the practical effect of init scripts has >become fairly standardized. Some init scripts in Debian build dynamic configuration before

Re: Debian systemd survey

Le mercredi 29 mai 2013 à 21:43 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit : > That is one of my concerns: Once Debian GNU/Linux has systemd as > default, noone will an longer provide init scripts, let alone tested > init scripts, which will severely hurt non-Linux kernels in Debian. While entirely true, I think

Re: Debian systemd survey

Ken Barber writes: > What are the results Michael? He posted them to debian-devel, but also: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg//2013/05/27/systemd-survey-results.html -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-

Re: Debian systemd survey

What are the results Michael? ken. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > Hello, > > In the past, we have had multiple heated discussions involving > systemd. We (the pkg-systemd-maintainers team) would like to better > understand why some people dislike systemd. > > Theref

Re: Debian systemd survey

Marc Haber writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I'm happy to provide both, integrate patches, etc., although I think >> init scripts are awful and my level of personal motivation to work on >> init scripts compared to anything else (whether it be systemd or >> upstart or whatever else someone might

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:30:47 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> Would you also be happy to test and support both systemd unit files >> _and_ init scripts? > >I'm happy to provide both, integrate patches, etc., although I think init >scripts are awful and my level of personal motiva

Re: Debian systemd survey

Marc Haber writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> (The shading of meaning between those two options could be clearer. I >> took it as a measure of enthusiasm and personally answered "I welcome >> systemd in Debian" because, regardless of whether it becomes the >> default, I'm happy to provide systemd

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:27:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >(The shading of meaning between those two options could be clearer. I >took it as a measure of enthusiasm and personally answered "I welcome >systemd in Debian" because, regardless of whether it becomes the default, >I'm happy to provide sy

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:32 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:40:19AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:50:00 -0700, Steve Langasek >> wrote: >> >Also worth noting: >> > >> >~/systemd$ find . -name '*.c' | grep -vE 'tests|test/|intl/|udev/' \ >> >

Re: Debian systemd survey

Bob Proulx writes: > The wording of one of the questions in the survey is problematic. > What is your general sentiment towards having systemd in Debian (not > necessarily as default)? Choose one of the following answers > [ ] I welcome systemd in Debian, everything is fine > [ ] I

Re: Debian systemd survey

Michael Stapelberg wrote: > In the past, we have had multiple heated discussions involving > systemd. We (the pkg-systemd-maintainers team) would like to better > understand why some people dislike systemd. > > Therefore, we have created a survey, which you can find at > http://survey.zekjur.net/i

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

❦ 24 mai 2013 12:29 CEST, Dmitrijs Ledkovs  : > The best way to run daemons under upstart is in foreground, then > correct PID is tracked and the complete stdout/stderr is properly > collected and stored in /var/log/upstart/$job.log (even early boot > output). The best way to run a daemon under

Re: Debian systemd survey

Thomas Goirand writes: > I don't understand the OP's post in the first place. What did he need to > know that wasn't discussed before? The opinions of all the people who have opinions but are uninterested in wading through huge threads to express them, don't read debian-devel at all (the call fo

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/24/2013 04:15 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:07:06AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 05/23/2013 03:55 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> How on earth does that contradict with the fact that 40%, i.e. >>> the minority of all contributions are done by the orig

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:29:07PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 24/05/13 11:29, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > > As far as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), systemd instead of > > counting/tracking forks uses cgroups to keep track of the started > > processes. > systemd uses cgroups to trac

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

Dmitrijs Ledkovs debian.org> writes: >> Also on technical merits although more philosophically, with Upstart you're >> expressing yourself in an event-based DSL rather than writing configuration >> files. It's pretty generic. But unfortunately, that means it's also not >> entirely straightforward

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:40:19AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:50:00 -0700, Steve Langasek > wrote: > >Also worth noting: > > > >~/systemd$ find . -name '*.c' | grep -vE 'tests|test/|intl/|udev/' \ > > | xargs wc -l | tail -n1 > > 149081 total > >$ find . -name '*.c

Re: Debian systemd survey

Matthias Urlichs wrote: >Steve McIntyre writes: > >> Matthias wrote: >> > >> >Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service >> >files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. >> >> Most? Really? Do you have stats for that? >> >Given the fact that sysv

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

On 24/05/13 11:29, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > As far as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), systemd instead of > counting/tracking forks uses cgroups to keep track of the started > processes. systemd uses cgroups to track "which processes are part of this service?", which means the services ma

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:29:27AM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Blog posts are interesting to read, but at times I'd like to look up > reference manuals which are more than bear minimal man pages. Whilst > systemd ships manpages, the website has either incorrectly formatted > wiki-pages and/or

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

On 23 May 2013 10:37, Ole Laursen wrote: > Steve Langasek debian.org> writes: >> Sorry you ran into trouble with upstart. > > Not a DD, just a happy Debian user, hope you'll excuse me, but on the topic > of Upstart, I have some technical comments on why, surprisingly, I think it > may not be matu

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 2013-05-24 02:16, brian m. carlson wrote: Yes, systemd uses separate processes, but they are not independent. They cannot be independently turned off. If I decide I do not want the journal features, however useful others might think they are, I should not have to resort to chmod and dpkg-stat

Re: Debian systemd survey

Adam Borowski writes: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:55:41AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> On 05/23/2013 06:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> > "As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of >> contributors" >> >> How on earth does that contradict with the fact that 40%,

Re: Debian systemd survey

Steve Langasek writes: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:11:55AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > >> Also, post-raring, systemd is available in Ubuntu aswell, and in some >> cases, you can check for systemd at runtime, needing no modification to >> the package *at all*. > > What's available in Ubuntu are

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

On 05/22/2013 06:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:39:00PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: On 05/22/2013 04:50 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I went through the various init systems threads again during the last few days. My understanding of the consensus so fa

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:07:06AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I'm still not convinced. Don't trust the lies from Lennart, the git > clone tells the truth: As a mostly lurker, I think there was already a request to be a bit more polite on this mailing list. The is a big difference between someo

Re: Debian systemd survey

If On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:50:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > A large number of contributors to an *init system* is not > something that should be a goal in and of itself Then > Furthermore, the statistics for systemd are themselves a distortion isn't really relevant here, let's please n

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:22:12AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Ubuntu carries patches downstream to make logind work without systemd > but with upstart instead, but I don't think that doing that is a sane > solution. Various GNOME code incorrectly checked for systemd-as-init before using login

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:07:06AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/23/2013 03:55 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > How on earth does that contradict with the fact that 40%, i.e. > > the minority of all contributions are done by the original > > author. 40% still means that 60% of the co

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:22:12AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2013/5/24 brian m. carlson : Gentlemen, This is well-worn territory on -devel. Please bear in mind the OP's wish not to open this can of worms again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subj

Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]

Steve Langasek debian.org> writes: > Sorry you ran into trouble with upstart. Not a DD, just a happy Debian user, hope you'll excuse me, but on the topic of Upstart, I have some technical comments on why, surprisingly, I think it may not be mature enough yet. A couple of years ago I was doing em

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:50:00 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >Also worth noting: > >~/systemd$ find . -name '*.c' | grep -vE 'tests|test/|intl/|udev/' \ > | xargs wc -l | tail -n1 > 149081 total >$ find . -name '*.c' | grep -vE 'tests|test/|intl/|udev/' | xargs wc -l \ > | tail -n1 > 31282

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:18:04 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 à 22:06 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit : >> Yes, systemd trying to replace so much of traditional UNIX tools at >> once and so blatantly breaking the "One job one tool" principle that >> has made our platform so successf

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 04:21 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/23/2013 03:15 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I have the (possibly wrong) impression that OpenRC is less advanced > > technically than systemd and upstart, and lacks many of their advantages > > For example, according to https://bugs.ge

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/24/2013 01:15 AM, brian m. carlson wrote: I can use only parts of coreutils if I desire. The same is true for systemd. Ubuntu is using parts of systemd without actually using the daemon itself. Also, coreutils does not start services on startup that I do not need. Aeh, what the heck

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/24/2013 01:20 AM, brian m. carlson wrote: rsyslog is priority important and is the default syslog implementation in Debian. It's also the default in Fedora. I think we can be confident that it gets lots of real-world use. I am fully aware of that. I was mainly talking about the other lo

Re: Debian systemd survey

Steve Langasek writes: [...] > by people advocating for systemd; instead, they always cherry-pick the > statistics that paint it in the most favorable light. Because systemd > advocates are not trying to win on technology, they're trying to win on > marketing. Please don't make such generalizati

Re: Debian systemd survey

2013/5/24 brian m. carlson : > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:45:46AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> 2013/5/24 brian m. carlson : >> > The Unix Way is to use separate processes >> > for separate tasks. >> ...and this is what systemd does! It's not like we have an >> event-logger, hotkey-handling and

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:45:46AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2013/5/24 brian m. carlson : > > The Unix Way is to use separate processes > > for separate tasks. > ...and this is what systemd does! It's not like we have an > event-logger, hotkey-handling and seat-management all in pid0. It is >

Re: Debian systemd survey

2013/5/24 brian m. carlson : > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:18:04PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 à 22:06 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit : >> > Yes, systemd trying to replace so much of traditional UNIX tools at >> > once and so blatantly breaking the "One job one tool" principle

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:10:57PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 05/23/2013 11:43 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > >Did you include the stats for all projects systemd wants to replace as well? > >For just one piece: > >* busybox-syslogd > >* dsyslog > >* inetutils-syslogd > >* rsyslog > >*

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:18:04PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 à 22:06 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit : > > Yes, systemd trying to replace so much of traditional UNIX tools at > > once and so blatantly breaking the "One job one tool" principle that > > has made our platform so

Re: Debian systemd survey

Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 à 22:06 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit : > Yes, systemd trying to replace so much of traditional UNIX tools at > once and so blatantly breaking the "One job one tool" principle that > has made our platform so successful is one major part of the > acceptance issues that systemd has

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu 23 May 2013 12:50:00 Steve Langasek wrote: > 78% is not a minority. But this isn't the statistic that gets > trotted out by people advocating for systemd; instead, they always > cherry-pick the statistics that paint it in the most favorable > light. Because systemd advocates are not trying

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 03:15 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I have the (possibly wrong) impression that OpenRC is less advanced > technically than systemd and upstart, and lacks many of their advantages > For example, according to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945 > which is linked from > http://w

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 03:55 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 05/23/2013 06:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> * As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of >>>contributors. >> >> If you are tired of seeing the same arguments, > > Personal insults is something you call arguments?

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:34:09 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >P.S: @all: Please keep in mind that systemd is not just an init >system, but contains many other bui?ding blocks to create an operating >system, e.g. journald to create better syslogs (it forwards messages >to traditional syslog, so no wo

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:55:41AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > don't post things which > >have already been debunked as well. You are doing the very same thing > >that you are complaining about: I already posted in this list the git > >log stats, and Lennart owns more than 40% of al

Re: Debian systemd survey

2013/5/23 Marc Haber : > On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:40:57 +0200, Matthias Klumpp > wrote: >>Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service >>files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. > > Are those any better than init scripts shipped by upstream? How ma

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:07:16PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service > >files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. > > Are those any better than init scripts shipped by upstream? How many > Debian packages use

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:40:57 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service >files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. Are those any better than init scripts shipped by upstream? How many Debian packages use upstream

Re: Debian systemd survey

* Philipp Kern [2013-05-23 15:39]: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:22:22PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: > > Actually it's just a response to the ongoing insulting by joss to > > variouse participants on mailinglists. As usual he has a way of mailing > > that i find disgusting. > > I don't find you

Re: Debian systemd survey

On May 23, 2013, at 02:17 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: >I’m not criticizing the fact that upstart comes from Ubuntu. I disagree >with the idea of having Ubuntu as the sole origin of innovation in the >project. It gives bad habits to both Debian and Ubuntu if the natural >thing to do to make things

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:11:55AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Also, post-raring, systemd is available in Ubuntu aswell, and in some > cases, you can check for systemd at runtime, needing no modification to > the package *at all*. What's available in Ubuntu are the systemd dbus services, the lib

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:22:22PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: > Actually it's just a response to the ongoing insulting by joss to > variouse participants on mailinglists. As usual he has a way of mailing > that i find disgusting. I don't find yours to be much better. > > You know why many proj

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:43 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > So if your comment is a > > fair critique of upstart proponents, then mine is an equally fair critique > > of systemd proponents. > > I’m not criticizing the fact that upstart comes from Ubuntu. I disagree > with the idea of having U

Re: Debian systemd survey

Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Debian systemd survey"): > Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 15:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > There certainly have been cases of fd.o changes being dropped into > > Debian without dealing with the integration questions. mime -> > &

Re: Debian systemd survey

Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 15:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > There certainly have been cases of fd.o changes being dropped into Debian > without dealing with the integration questions. mime -> .desktop is a prime > example of this. .desktop is clearly far superior - but that doesn't mean >

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 11:43 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: Did you include the stats for all projects systemd wants to replace as well? For just one piece: * busybox-syslogd * dsyslog * inetutils-syslogd * rsyslog * socklog-run * syslog-ng-core Well, how many of these are actually used in the real world? Ch

Re: Debian systemd survey

Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 à 11:43 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > Did you include the stats for all projects systemd wants to replace as well? > For just one piece: > * busybox-syslogd > * dsyslog > * inetutils-syslogd > * rsyslog > * socklog-run > * syslog-ng-core For the Xth time (with X becoming r

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:55:41AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 05/23/2013 06:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > "As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of > contributors" > > How on earth does that contradict with the fact that 40%, i.e. > the minority of all cont

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 06:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: * As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of contributors. If you are tired of seeing the same arguments, Personal insults is something you call arguments? You have a weird method of discussion ... > don't post things which ha

Re: Debian systemd survey

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > - there are 300+ upstart job files ready to be imported from Ubuntu FWIW, there are a similar (if not more) number of systemd service files we can look at and import from: Fedora, openSUSE, Arch and possibly a few others too. (This I find to be a great strength of system

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 23/05/13 at 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/22/2013 04:53 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, > > as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. > > Though it should be easy enough to port OpenRC t

Re: Debian systemd survey

Thomas Goirand writes: > On 05/23/2013 01:45 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> I understand it will be a pain for Ubuntu if Debian picks a different >> init system. I don’t think this is relevant for the discussion, though. > > It might be very relevant for many of us that our package works on > *bo

Re: Debian systemd survey

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Matthias wrote: > >Am 22.05.2013 18:12 schrieb "Lucas Nussbaum" : > >> > >> Note that if it's there, and Ubuntu uses upstart, it has probably been > >> tested. I was not suggesting that we blindly import upstart job files > >> from U

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 02:35 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Honestly, these personal accusations against Lennart are getting old and > boring. Don't you really have any other good argument to bring up > against systemd other than you dislike *one* of the systemd developers?* > > [...] > > * As you

Re: bzr (was: Re: Debian systemd survey)

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 22 May 2013 22:02, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >>> [...] Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by >>> upstream with >2000 open bugs [1]) [...]. >> >> On the other hand, it would be nice if you keep your FUD to the minimum. >> Bazaar >> do

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/23/2013 01:45 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I understand it will be a pain for Ubuntu if Debian picks a different > init system. I don’t think this is relevant for the discussion, though. It might be very relevant for many of us that our package works on *both* Debian and Ubuntu (and other d

Re: Debian systemd survey

Steve McIntyre writes: > Matthias wrote: > > > >Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service > >files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. > > Most? Really? Do you have stats for that? > Given the fact that sysvinit scripts are supported by syst

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 05/22/2013 04:53 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, > as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. Though it should be easy enough to port OpenRC to kFreeBSD and Hurd, once it completes its support for the c

bzr (was: Re: Debian systemd survey)

On 22 May 2013 22:02, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >> [...] Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by >> upstream with >2000 open bugs [1]) [...]. > > On the other hand, it would be nice if you keep your FUD to the minimum. > Bazaar > doesn't look abandoned[1], and >2000 open bugs is not uncommon. N

Re: Debian systemd survey

I really like how this paragraph: On 23/05/2013 02:41, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > [...] > And another one. Why is it that almost anyone who isn't favor of > systemd is directly going off insulting their developers or any > of the organizations behind of it? and this paragraph: > Blame Ca

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 23/05/2013 02:35, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME >> > and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, >> > because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. > Honestly, these personal accus

Re: Debian systemd survey

> > * As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of >contributors. …as you may know, upstart is not only older than systemd, but is also used on a large amount of live systems, probably many times more the number of systems that have systemd installed.*⁾ Best regards, – Jubal

Re: Debian systemd survey

On 2013-05-22 15:39:00 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On 05/22/2013 04:50 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > >Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >>I went through the various init systems threads again during the last > >>few days. My understanding of the consensus so far is the following: > >> > >>- Both systemd and up

Re: Debian systemd survey

Matthias wrote: >Am 22.05.2013 18:12 schrieb "Lucas Nussbaum" : >> >> Note that if it's there, and Ubuntu uses upstart, it has probably been >> tested. I was not suggesting that we blindly import upstart job files >> from Ubuntu, but a basis to start from is better than no basis at all. >> (I can s

  1   2   >