On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:05:50AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> [snip]
> > Even the claims of the Gentoo people about the separate /usr partition
> > are unjustified [4].
>
> > [4] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
> From that page:
>
> “There is no way to reli
I demand that John Paul Adrian Glaubitz may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Even the claims of the Gentoo people about the separate /usr partition
> are unjustified [4].
> [4] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From that page:
“There is no way to reliably br
I demand that Kevin Toppins may or may not have written...
> On 19 November 2012 04:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
[snip]
>> And thirdly, if you have very large file systems (we have a 30TB hardware
>> raid here, for example), filesystem checks can take forever. If you
>> reboot such a se
Hello!
Gergely Nagy has written on Thursday, 22 November, at 0:05:
>If you read my mail further, your question is answered there. But I'll
>repeat it, for good measures: no, it does not mean that. I only means
>that your syslogd of choice is getting its input from
>/run/systemd/journal/syslog
"Andrej N. Gritsenko" writes:
> Hello!
>
> Gergely Nagy has written on Wednesday, 21 November, at 10:29:
>>Matthias Klumpp writes:
>
>>> For syslogd, systemd provides journald for those who want to use it,
>>> but the Journal is no dependency of systemd.
>
>>Wrong. You can't have any recent
2012/11/21 Andrej N. Gritsenko :
> Hello!
>
> Gergely Nagy has written on Wednesday, 21 November, at 10:29:
>>Matthias Klumpp writes:
>
>>> For syslogd, systemd provides journald for those who want to use it,
>>> but the Journal is no dependency of systemd.
>>Wrong. You can't have any recent s
Hello!
Gergely Nagy has written on Wednesday, 21 November, at 10:29:
>Matthias Klumpp writes:
>> For syslogd, systemd provides journald for those who want to use it,
>> but the Journal is no dependency of systemd.
>Wrong. You can't have any recent systemd without the Journal, and
>'legacy'
Matthias Klumpp writes:
> For syslogd, systemd provides journald for those who want to use it,
> but the Journal is no dependency of systemd.
Wrong. You can't have any recent systemd without the Journal, and
'legacy' syslogds are piggybacking on /run/systemd/journal/syslog, where
the journal for
Hi - please change the Subject: of the thread if the topic of conversation
has moved on. (We're all guilty of not doing this enough…)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:07:29AM -0600, Kevin Toppins wrote:
snip 32 line preamble
I realise your intentions are good, here, but please, it is not much help.
Wri
> Me too, please read:
> http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Oh crap, my apologies.
I honestly forgot that the reply was still at the bottom of my email.
I did not intentionally leave it there.
It certainly wasn't some passive-aggressive kind of post-reply, I do
apologize for it being t
Hi!
2012/11/20 Marc Haber :
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:13:28 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>[...]
> Aren't the systemd makers trying hard to move existing functionality
> from udev, consolekit, policykit and syslogd into systemd, effectively
> making those unavailable for non-Linux?
No, not really... Co
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:13:28 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>There is no reason for kFreeBSD and Hurd to stop Debian's Linux ports
>from using systemd or upstart by default once wheezy is released. We
>can keep sysvinit/openrc/busybox init/etc for kFreeBSD, Hurd and users
>who need or prefer them.
Aren'
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:25:38PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "The core components are always built (which includes systemd itself, as
> well as udevd and journald).
>
> For some uses the configure switches do not provide sufficient modularity.
> For example, they cannot be used to bu
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:20:42PM -0600, Kevin Toppins wrote:
> I do not want to fight with you.
>
> I do not want to silence you.
>
> I do not want to _force_ you to think a certain way. But I would be
> pleased if you would be willing to try a different way of thinking.
Me too, please read:
h
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> How many non-Linux platforms does Arch Linux (sic!) support?
Looks like just Hurd: http://www.archhurd.org/
It seems that they are talking about Arch BSD too:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=142679
> I know of two non-Linux platfor
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:04:35 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>One of the Arch developers actually made a couple of good points why
>they switched to systemd as default [1].
How many non-Linux platforms does Arch Linux (sic!) support?
I know of two non-Linux platforms that Debian prides i
Ehmm...
-->
If you want to reduce the build time dependencies (though only dbus
and libcap are needed as build time deps) and you know the specific
component you are interested in doesn't need it, then create a dummy
.pc file for that dependency (i.e. basically empty), and configure
systemd wit
I do not want to fight with you.
I do not want to silence you.
I do not want to _force_ you to think a certain way. But I would be
pleased if you would be willing to try a different way of thinking.
I do not want to detract from the focus of the original post of this
thread. Meaning I would just
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > Also, the people who write udev and systemd really know what they are
> > doing, and especially systemd is documented perfectly well - everyone
> > who d
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Also, the people who write udev and systemd really know what they are
> doing, and especially systemd is documented perfectly well - everyone
> who does not feel comfortable with systemd should read at least the
> basic docs. (and t
Also, the people who write udev and systemd really know what they are
doing, and especially systemd is documented perfectly well - everyone
who does not feel comfortable with systemd should read at least the
basic docs. (and then think again, and then probably dislike it on a
basis of facts)
Also,
Hello Kevin,
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 09:51:22PM -0600, Kevin Toppins wrote:
> Just because something is very old, does not necessarily make it
> wrong, obsolete, or require that it be changed.
Correct. But on the other hand, just because something is 40 years
old, doesn't mean we're not allowed t
Roger Leigh codelibre.net> writes:
> If you want a reliable system, you need a reliable PID 1.
yes. this was i believe why richard lightman implemented depinit
in i think it was under 1,000 lines of code. he was delighted
when i came up with a simple modification which would allow
him to remov
On 17.11.2012 03:43, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> Maybe systemd is faster, but i think being unable to do a normal reboot
>>> is an important drawback.
>>
>> systemd reboots just fine. It also kills all processes just like sysvinit
>> does.
>
> I have also had
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Maybe systemd is faster, but i think being unable to do a normal reboot
> > is an important drawback.
>
> systemd reboots just fine. It also kills all processes just like sysvinit
> does.
I have also had problems with systemd not rebooting as fast as sys
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:37 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Thomas Goirand [2012.11.14.0412 +0100]:
> > As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesting about the
> > insanity Kay and Lennart have done to udev,
>
> I cannot help but notice that Kay and Lennart were both
> Gen
> systemd reboots just fine. It also kills all processes just like sysvinit
> does.
Some help in "how to find the cause" would be much more appreciated and useful
than: "it's not happening, you were just dreaming that".
--
Salvo Tomaselli
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@list
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
>
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=661239
>>
>> Hmm, that doesn't look like a valid bug report to me. Especially I
>> don't see why dhclient would be able to disrupt systemd in such a way
>> that you'd need to do a hard re
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=661239
>
> Hmm, that doesn't look like a valid bug report to me. Especially I
> don't see why dhclient would be able to disrupt systemd in such a way
> that you'd need to do a hard reboot.
I don't see why either (that makes it a bug and not a
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2012 00.57.50 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> People are constantly insisting that systemd is too bloated or unreliable,
>> but yet no one has really come up with real examples to prove that.
>
> Hum, actually wh
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:45:45PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2012 00.57.50 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > People are constantly insisting that systemd is too bloated or unreliable,
> > but yet no one has really come up with real examples to prove that.
>
> Hum,
On Thursday 15 November 2012 00.57.50 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> People are constantly insisting that systemd is too bloated or unreliable,
> but yet no one has really come up with real examples to prove that.
Hum, actually when i tried it, i couldn't halt or reboot my machine without an
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> BTW, if systemd is a good design, why does it rely so heavily on
> socket-based activation, which has fundamentally unmaintainable security?
Please excuse the intrusion of a mere user, but I haven't heard that
one yet, can you elaborate?
Steve Langasek writes:
> Aside from libc, upstart has only two external library dependencies (three
> in trunk), dbus and nih:
>
> $ objdump -p /sbin/init | grep NEEDED
> NEEDED libnih.so.1
> NEEDED libnih-dbus.so.1
> NEEDED libdbus-1.so.3
> NEEDED
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 16:32:41 +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 15/11/2012 16:11, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > TBH, I'd not trust my system to *any* critical service that uses dbus,
> > AFAIK it still asserts on error conditions (including non-programmer
> > errors). Whenever I've had to code a critic
]] Roger Leigh
> So if the init process receives a signal like a SIGSEGV due to
> tripping over a bad pointer, your system will die immediately.
No, it does not. With init, you can catch it and continue. In the case
of systemd, it dumps core (if possible) and then freezes itself so it
stops do
On 15/11/2012 16:11, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 15:23:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:05:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> If you want a reliable system, you need a reliable PID 1. Putting
>>> additional complexity into PID1 increases the likelihood
On 15/11/2012 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It has problems, yes. But it's been able to boot billions of machines
> for several decades. That can't mean it's not good. Things that aren't
> good can't manage to do such things.
Oh sure, it isn't bad, it just isn't good enough. I don't think machin
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:37:21PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > But why is a 30-year-old concept necessarily worse than a new one? Or to
> > put it
> > another way, why is it necessary to "bring Linux forward", in cases
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 15:23:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:05:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > If you want a reliable system, you need a reliable PID 1. Putting
> > additional complexity into PID1 increases the likelihood that a
> > bug will bring down your *entire
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:57:50AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Some things must be as simple as possible even today.
>
> Care to elaborate why? To save memory on an 8 GB workstation? Even the 25 US$
> Raspberry Pi has enough power for systemd.
This is obvious. For security and
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 11:37 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 10:07 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:11:32AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > [...]
> >> So systems which put additional logic in PID 1 are going to increase
> >> the probability of bugs being present, an
On 11/15/2012 07:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:43 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
>>> Modern computer systems are much more versatile and complex than they were
>>> at the time when System V Init was conceived.
>> Some things must be as simple as possible even t
On 11/15/2012 10:07 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:11:32AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> [...]
>> So systems which put additional logic in PID 1 are going to increase
>> the probability of bugs being present, and those bugs could kill
>> your system.
> [...]
>
> This is also tr
On 11/15/2012 06:43 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I believe the regression (removal of support for firmware loading
> during module loading) has been fixed. However, the udev developers
> *knew in advance* that this would be a problem, reported such uses of
> firmware loading as being driver bugs. The
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:11:32AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
[...]
> So systems which put additional logic in PID 1 are going to increase
> the probability of bugs being present, and those bugs could kill
> your system.
[...]
This is also true for the kernel, which is why we generally prefer
to us
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:57:50AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:43 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> >> Modern computer systems are much more versatile and complex than they were
> >> at the time when System V Init was conceived.
> >
> > Some things must be a
As a source for some of our concerns here is us trying to separate out
the udev build system so we can build ONLY udev if we want to install
ONLY udev (we have to build systemd if we want ONLY udev right now).
This means we have to pull in build deps even if we don't actually need
them.
http://li
On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:17 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/557177
>
> I suppose you should comment on it too, just to add your indignation
> at a bug that never affected you and wasn't fixed for a whole 2 days.
Yes, it was fixed, after a ver
On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:45:48AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> This is not theoretical. upstart has been PID 1 in Ubuntu since 2006. It
>>> *is* absolutely dependable and reliable.
>
>> Upstart has had its problems, too [1].
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:45:48AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > This is not theoretical. upstart has been PID 1 in Ubuntu since 2006. It
> > *is* absolutely dependable and reliable.
> Upstart has had its problems, too [1].
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:45:48AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> > This is not theoretical. upstart has been PID 1 in Ubuntu since 2006. It
> > *is* absolutely dependable and reliable.
>
> Upstart has had its problems, too
On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:43 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
>> Modern computer systems are much more versatile and complex than they were
>> at the time when System V Init was conceived.
>
> Some things must be as simple as possible even today.
Care to elaborate why? To save memory on an 8 GB work
On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Upstart provides a PID 1 that is absolutely rock solid. It's true that it's
> more complex than sysvinit, because it's more featureful;
The same is valid for the comparision of upstart vs systemd.
> And of all the concerns raised when Ubunt
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:05:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> > > change things
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I believe the regression (removal of support for firmware loading
> during module loading) has been fixed. However, the udev developers
> *knew in advance* that this would be a problem, reported such uses
> of firmware loading as being dri
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:34:27PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:41:55PM -0300, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> > >udev isn't broken.
> >
> > really?
> >
> > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=134012&p=1
>
> I actually remember having seen this issue on F
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:41:55PM -0300, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> >udev isn't broken.
>
> really?
>
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=134012&p=1
I actually remember having seen this issue on Fedora Rawhide as well,
but it vanished after an update a few weeks ago, so it rather seems
Hi!
All these concerns about systemd and systemd vs. upstart have been
addressed in a very good way by the systemd authors.
Also, I would like to point out that "systemd" is the name of a
project with multiple binaries - all the features systemd provides
don't mean that everything is running in one
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Pretty sure you have this backwards. The decision to implement upstart and
> use it in Ubuntu was a technical [corrected] one. The decision to NIH a
> dependency-based init system and then try to strongarm everyone into using
> it by breaking compatibility was the politica
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
But anyway, we're getting tir
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> > > change thi
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> > change things
> TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly shooting agai
Hi!
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 21:49:07 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> change things - maybe we can build up enough momentum so that things
> might just be less frustrating for us all. You're all welcome to join,
> ignore us or do wh
On 2012-11-14 15:16, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
True, but as I said, System V Init is not a good concept anymore,
that's why it's being dropped. Apple dropped the old init system
On 11/15/2012 01:26 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
But anyway, we're getting tired of thei
On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> True, but as I said, System V Init is not a good concept anymore,
>> that's why it's being dropped. Apple dropped the old init system with
>> MacOS X 10.4, why should the Linux world s
On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> True, but as I said, System V Init is not a good concept anymore,
> that's why it's being dropped. Apple dropped the old init system with
> MacOS X 10.4, why should the Linux world still stick to it in 2012?
Could we try not to mix the init
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 06:26:39PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > If you want a reliable system, you need a reliable PID 1. Putting
> > additional complexity into PID1 increases the likelihood that a
> > bug will bring down your *entire system*. PID 1 is a single point
> > of failur
On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
>>> change things
>>
>> TBH, I'm
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:04:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> > change things
>
> TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly shooting ag
On 11/14/2012 07:53 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> What are the problems they try to address?
Haven't you read this?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
Plus the unwanted move from / to /usr, insane configuration file
things not using /etc, and more RedHat-ismes which have been
discussed at large i
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:28:34PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> I'm tired of these changes that don't solve any problems. Half-baked
> stuff that is deployed before it is even feature-complete with the
> boring old stuff it is supposed to replace. How would you feel about a
> forced upgrade of a
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> But why is a 30-year-old concept necessarily worse than a new one? Or to put
> it
> another way, why is it necessary to "bring Linux forward", in cases where what
> is already present is good and works well? (And, taken further: in ca
On 11/14/12 22:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
>> change things
>
> TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly shooting against
> them because thes
On 11/14/2012 09:04 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to change
things
TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly shooting against them
because these p
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to
> change things
TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly shooting against
them because these people are unwilling to accept changes. We're not
bringing L
On 11/14/12 19:53, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> What are the problems they try to address?
Removal of features, broken build system, etc.
Just the little things that make things exciting (and we prefer things
to be boring so we can sleep at night)
Plus an unpredictable upstream that can't be trusted
On 11/14/12 18:37, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Thomas Goirand [2012.11.14.0412 +0100]:
>> As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesting about the
>> insanity Kay and Lennart have done to udev,
>
> I cannot help but notice that Kay and Lennart were both
> Gentoo-freaks when t
also sprach Thomas Goirand [2012.11.14.0412 +0100]:
> As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesting about the
> insanity Kay and Lennart have done to udev,
I cannot help but notice that Kay and Lennart were both
Gentoo-freaks when they took on udev and at least I always
attributed mu
On 11/14/2012 11:25 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> So far this seems to be mostly talk and hot air.
It's clearly going to take some time to materialize into a more
definitive project, however, I don't think that's fair to say it's
only "talk and hot air" as I saw some Gentoo patches to
uncruft udev al
On 14.11.2012 04:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is an interesting read:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
So far this seems to be mostly talk and hot air.
I'm also wondering how many more forks the gentoo guys want to start [1].
Michael
[1]
https://fo
82 matches
Mail list logo
