On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:10:38AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Since you repeat this claim: over the last year and a bit, systemd has
> seen 21 releases. I agree this is quite a lot, but it's hardly twice a
> week.
The number of Linux releases over the samer period is only about half that,
w
On 2. 6. 2013, at 23:00, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 21:26:32 +0200, Ond?ej Surý
> wrote:
>> We have removed archs from release archs and moved them to ports and nobody
>> claimed we are less universal.
>
> I did. I still think it is a pity that we removed them.
You could have inve
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 21:26:32 +0200, Ond?ej Surý
wrote:
>We have removed archs from release archs and moved them to ports and nobody
>claimed we are less universal.
I did. I still think it is a pity that we removed them.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy cop
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 03:39:44PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> They release twice a week or so. That is another sign of a software you
> shouldn't rely on too much
You mean like, say, the Linux kernel?
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~
On 02-06-13 16:09, Stuart Prescott wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I happen to agree with Marc. Having everything in /etc makes it
>> *much* clearer what the actual current configuration is; it also means
>> that if the defaults change on upgrade, your environment doesn't
>> suddenly start acting differently or
On 06/02/2013 04:25 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 01 juin 2013 à 11:59 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
Before saying things like that, please file a GR removing the
"universal" from Debian's claim.
Silly me. I thought “universal” was meant about usage, like the ability
to run the same OS o
Le samedi 01 juin 2013 à 11:59 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> Before saying things like that, please file a GR removing the
> "universal" from Debian's claim.
Silly me. I thought “universal” was meant about usage, like the ability
to run the same OS on a supercomputer, a toaster, a smartphone and
> FWIW, I happen to agree with Marc. Having everything in /etc makes it
> *much* clearer what the actual current configuration is; it also means
> that if the defaults change on upgrade, your environment doesn't
> suddenly start acting differently or inconsistently.
If we want everything that mak
]] Salvo Tomaselli
> In data sabato 01 giugno 2013 22.02.25, Uoti Urpala ha scritto:
>
> > So, to sum it up: Upstream systemd is ready for production and suitable
> > to be chosen as the default Debian init.
>
> Can you back up your claim somehow?
Could we please not be having this discussion a
On Sun 02 Jun 2013 01:12:43 Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Also, these issues were already covered in the thread a year ago (and
> your post doesn't look like you'd have understood the arguments
> there but disagreed).
Your quality advocacy work for upstart is almost as good as Rob Weir's
incessant effort
Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 22:57 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Debian regularly removes old buggy packages that few people use. Are you
> > saying that is wrong, and for the sake of freedom people should be given
> > the ability to keep installing them even if few actually want t
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 30-05-13 22:36, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > While there is room for reasonable disagreement about the relative
> > benefits of different configuration setups, "completely inferior even to
> > dpkg-conffile handling" is not part of any reasonable disagreement. That
> > claim i
In data sabato 01 giugno 2013 22.02.25, Uoti Urpala ha scritto:
> So, to sum it up: Upstream systemd is ready for production and suitable
> to be chosen as the default Debian init.
Can you back up your claim somehow?
> You mixed up these two things (you also talked
> about use in Fedora, which ob
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 22:57 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:42:33 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> > wrote:
> Why would kFreeBSD particularly matter for freedom? As opposed to any
> other random piece of software?
>
> Debian regularly removes old buggy
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 09:44:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
FWIW, I happen to agree with Marc. Having everything in /etc makes it
*much* clearer what the actual current configuration is; it also means
that if the defaults change on upgrade, your environment doesn't
suddenly start acting diff
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:42:33 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
> >What's the point in doing that work
> >when, in the end, hardly anyone is using it?
>
> Freedom. It is not free to take away freedom just because too few
> people have chosen to exercise freedom.
Why wo
On 30-05-13 22:36, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uoti Urpala writes:
>>> Marc Haber wrote:
And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
which has huge wishes left open as well.
>>
>>> False. The message you replied to already listed advantages over
>>
On 1. 6. 2013, at 16:48, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:42:33 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
>> What's the point in doing that work
>> when, in the end, hardly anyone is using it?
>
> Freedom. It is not free to take away freedom just because too few
> people have chosen t
Ondřej Surý
On 1. 6. 2013, at 11:59, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:33:22 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>> On May 31, Jeff Epler wrote:
>>> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
>>> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustra
Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > You have the context wrong here. "considering systemd as a default init"
> > is too vague.
> Wikipedia says: A default, in computer science, refers to a setting or a
> value
> automatically assigned to a software application, computer program or device,
> outside of us
On 06/01/2013 04:48 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:42:33 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
What's the point in doing that work
when, in the end, hardly anyone is using it?
Freedom. It is not free to take away freedom just because too few
people have chosen to exercise free
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:42:33 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>What's the point in doing that work
>when, in the end, hardly anyone is using it?
Freedom. It is not free to take away freedom just because too few
people have chosen to exercise freedom.
Greetings
Marc
--
---
> You have the context wrong here. "considering systemd as a default init"
> is too vague.
Wikipedia says: A default, in computer science, refers to a setting or a value
automatically assigned to a software application, computer program or device,
outside of user intervention.
What's vague abou
On 06/01/2013 11:59 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
Before saying things like that, please file a GR removing the
"universal" from Debian's claim.
Calm down. Debian has been called "universal" long before the arrival
of the non-Linux kernels. And, in fact, Marco and Joss have a point
that if hardly anyon
]] Roger Lynn
> I prefer to be notified of changes to configuration files during upgrades so
> that I know which configurations need updating, rather than just hoping that
> the old config will work with the updated package and missing out on any new
> options silently introduced in a master conf
On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:33:22 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On May 31, Jeff Epler wrote:
>> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
>> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
>> whole thread.
>I'm sorry for the three kfreeb
On Fri, 31 May 2013 14:08:01 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>Le jeudi 30 mai 2013 à 22:25 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
>> >Do you actually run a kernel other than Linux
>>
>> Actually no, but it is a pleasure to see Debian move towards this
>> freedom with every new release.
>
>I disagree with t
On Fri, 31.05.13 23:31, Helmut Grohne (hel...@subdivi.de) wrote:
> debian-devel@l.d.o has been talking about socket activation interfaces.
> The technical differences are nicely summarized:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:53:52PM +0200, Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > But chronology is les
Dear upstart developers,
debian-devel@l.d.o has been talking about socket activation interfaces.
The technical differences are nicely summarized:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:53:52PM +0200, Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> But chronology is less important then the technical differences between
On 30/05/13 16:30, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
>> The /etc/ /lib/ /usr/lib/ split with files overriding each other,
>> invented because RPM systems do not prompt the user on package upgrades
>> and Red Hat does not support upgrading to the next major release.
> Well, that migh
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:33 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 31, Jeff Epler wrote:
>
> > The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> > even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> > whole thread.
> I'm sorry for the three kfreebsd users,
Ah, sorry wrong book: Animal farm, by the same author George Orwell: :)
1984 is about big brother watching you. (of course both very recommended
these days)
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 21:06 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:59 -0500, Jeff Epler wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:59 -0500, Jeff Epler wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:08:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I disagree with this claim. The wheezy release for kfreebsd is a joke,
> > and we should end it with jessie unless there are real users.
>
> What makes me other than a "real
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:45:49PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > This
> > is more true for the socket activation API that systemd could have
> > reasonably adopted from upstart, but chose not to do.
>
> Didn't systemd actually have a socket activation API before upstart? I
> don't remember exactl
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:12:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> That doesn't mean the toys are not important (...all work and no
> play...), they are, but they must not stop the inovation. And as we
> have sacrificed niche architecture and made them non-release, we must
> be also prepared to do the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:12:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On 31. 5. 2013, at 15:53, Jeff Epler wrote:
> > The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> > even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> > whole thread.
>
> I would happily su
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 05/28/2013 02:37 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>> My major point here was precisely that you are *not* done with just
>> writing the service/job descriptions/scripts for all those init
>> systems. You'd likely have to patch every single daemon to enable the
>> socket activ
On 31. 5. 2013, at 15:53, Jeff Epler wrote:
> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> whole thread.
I would happily support any non-linux kernel arch in form of integrating
patches, but the
On 05/28/2013 02:37 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
>> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd, upstart) or
>> three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my packages[*], if it
>> stops the endless flamewar here. I
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:53:07AM -0500, Jeff Epler wrote:
> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> whole thread.
I was just curious, not suggesting. I also asked this on an IRC channel
and
On May 31, Jeff Epler wrote:
> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> whole thread.
I'm sorry for the three kfreebsd users, but sometimes reality sucks.
Pretending that their needs are as mu
2013/5/31 Jeff Epler :
> Yes and yes. Wheezy kfreebsd amd64 is dandy for server and OK for some
> minor graphical desktop stuff (opengl is not in a good state right now,
> at least with nvidia hardware: nouveau is no-go due to not having kernel
> support and proprietary won't install). if you wan
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:05:50PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Do you actually run a kernel other than Linux and is anything other than
> Linux usable? I can understand it is not nice, but feels like the other
> options are bitrotting anyway.
Yes and yes. Wheezy kfreebsd amd64 is dandy for serve
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:08:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I disagree with this claim. The wheezy release for kfreebsd is a joke,
> and we should end it with jessie unless there are real users.
What makes me other than a "real user"? Perhaps some users of Debian
are more equal^Wreal than
Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:44:12AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I can't speak to other distributions, but in Debian, the systemd
> > > maintainers
> > > are in no position to decide that Debian will agree to rewrite its
> >
> > Focusing on "posi
Le jeudi 30 mai 2013 à 22:25 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> >Do you actually run a kernel other than Linux
>
> Actually no, but it is a pleasure to see Debian move towards this
> freedom with every new release.
I disagree with this claim. The wheezy release for kfreebsd is a joke,
and we should
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:26:37PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Of course it won't. Upstream and Red Hat have shown many times that
> they just don't care.
I've already replied with various examples before refuting this.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.de
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:59:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I can't speak to other distributions, but in Debian, the systemd maintainers
> are in no position to decide that Debian will agree to rewrite its
> system-level integration code (which works quite well already,
I meant more that:
-
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:44:12AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I can't speak to other distributions, but in Debian, the systemd maintainers
> > are in no position to decide that Debian will agree to rewrite its
>
> Focusing on "position to decide" seems less than construc
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm assuming you're talking here about things like /etc/default/locale and
> /etc/default/keyboard, which systemd upstream fails to handle.
>
> I can't speak to other distributions, but in Debian, the systemd maintainers
> are in no position to decide that Debian will agree
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:05:50PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> The goal is to make the boot more standard across distributions. So no
> unneeded differences in some configuration files, systemd conf files
> which are generic enough to be included upstream, etc.
> In the current state, each distri
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > Marc Haber wrote:
> >> And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
> >> which has huge wishes left open as well.
>
> > False. The message you replied to already listed advantages over
> > dpkg-conffile handling. This was also a
On Fri, 31 May 2013 01:53:01 +0800, Thomas Goirand
wrote:
>Though, I'm really not sure that if Debian decides to adopt Systemd now,
>rather than a bit later, it will influence its development, or change
>anything at all upstream.
Of course it won't. Upstream and Red Hat have shown many times that
On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:05:50 +0200, Olav Vitters
wrote:
>On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> And I am also opposing changes that will help in dropping the
>> "universal" out of Debian's claim.
>
>Do you actually run a kernel other than Linux
Actually no, but it is a ple
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:16:53 +0200, Olav Vitters
> wrote:
> >On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:21:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> The init system case is special because supporting another init script
> >> system will most probably mean tha
On 30-05-13 19:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 04:46 PM, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> While we are busy maintaining multiple indirection layers to
>> "support user choice"
>
> I don't think this is what Wouter was talking about (eg, he never said
> we should leave this as a choice to the user).
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Marc Haber wrote:
>> And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
>> which has huge wishes left open as well.
> False. The message you replied to already listed advantages over
> dpkg-conffile handling. This was also already discussed before:
> https:
On 05/30/2013 03:10 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think it makes perfect sense for us to support systemd, openrc, and
> upstart, at least for the time being; I doubt we'll continue supporting
> all three options until the end of times, but we don't have to do that.
I very much like the idea to gi
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:07:08 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
> >So, this is not really RHEL specific, and some other non-RH software
> >also has this scheme of storing config files.
>
> And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
> which has huge wishes
Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
> > On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> >[···]
> >> > There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not care about" deal,
> >> Do you have an example?
> > Persistent naming of network interfaces.
> ... is entirely optional, and can be disabled if som
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > Do you have an example?
> The /etc/ /lib/ /usr/lib/ split with files overriding each other,
> invented because RPM systems do not prompt the user on package upgrades
> and Red Hat does not suppor
On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:16:53 +0200, Olav Vitters
wrote:
>On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:21:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> The init system case is special because supporting another init script
>> system will most probably mean that all packages delivering an init
>> script ($ ls /etc/init.d/ | wc -l
On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:07:08 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
>So, this is not really RHEL specific, and some other non-RH software
>also has this scheme of storing config files.
And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
which has huge wishes left open as well.
Greetings
M
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:50:15PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Do you have any reason at all to believe that these were problems with
> > systemd, rather than problems in Debian configuration or mostly
> > independent bugs in other software that happened to trigger under
2013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
> On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
>[···]
>> > There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not care about" deal,
>> Do you have an example?
> Persistent naming of network interfaces.
... is entirely optional, and can be disabled if someone doesn't want
it - but I can't s
2013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
> On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
>
>> (I'm afraid to feed the troll)
> Hint: before accusing somebody of trolling it is a good idea to find out
> who he is.
I apologize.
--
Mathieu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> (I'm afraid to feed the troll)
Hint: before accusing somebody of trolling it is a good idea to find out
who he is.
> > There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not care about" deal,
> Do you have an example?
Persistent naming of network interfaces.
> > a
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:50:15PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Do you have any reason at all to believe that these were problems with
> systemd, rather than problems in Debian configuration or mostly
> independent bugs in other software that happened to trigger under
> systemd?
Whether or not syst
Mathieu Parent wrote:
> 2013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
> > and the "invent a new a configuration files scheme because it better
> > suits RPM and Red Hat policies" deal.
>
> Do you have an example?
I think he's referring to the etc-overrides-lib semantics that systemd
uses for configuration files. But
Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> I have tried systemd, and I like the approach it has, and in a few years I
> believe it has potential. But... using it to restart my computer i need to do
> an hard reset (and think of how happy would I be if my computer had been a
> server in a rack on the other side of
(I'm afraid to feed the troll)
2013/5/30 Marco d'Itri :
> On May 30, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
>> I never quite understood why people seem to think systemd upstream is
>> uncooperative (well, apart from the whole non-linux porting deal, where
>> their stance is completely understandable too). My expe
On May 30, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I never quite understood why people seem to think systemd upstream is
> uncooperative (well, apart from the whole non-linux porting deal, where
> their stance is completely understandable too). My experience so far
There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:21:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> The init system case is special because supporting another init script
> system will most probably mean that all packages delivering an init
> script ($ ls /etc/init.d/ | wc -l => 116 on my small notebook system)
> will have to adapt. Th
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:22:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> This is the case with software that has a cooperative upstream.
> systemd's upstream is known not to be.
I've seen as well as attended various conferences where systemd was
explained. There have also been various systemd specific events
Marc Haber writes:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:46:51 +0300, Riku Voipio
> wrote:
>>By switching early we can affect how a piece of software will evolve.
>
> This is the case with software that has a cooperative upstream.
> systemd's upstream is known not to be.
I never quite understood why people
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:38:22 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> I have tried systemd, and I like the approach it has, and in a few years
> I believe it has potential. But... using it to restart my computer i
> need to do an hard reset (and think of how happy would I be if my
> computer had been a serv
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:41 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
>At Debian, traditionally we support more than one choice (at least for a
>while), until the community at large decides that option X is the best
>one (and then we drop support for all the other options). The downside
>of that is that it t
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:46:51 +0300, Riku Voipio
wrote:
>By switching early we can affect how a piece of software will evolve.
This is the case with software that has a cooperative upstream.
systemd's upstream is known not to be.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No cou
On 2013-05-30, Riku Voipio wrote:
> By switching early we can affect how a piece of software will evolve.
> Is there something you would like to change in systemd? Now it still
> probably possible - 2 years from now it has shipped in RHEL, and books
> will have been written about it - and changing
> This is stockholm syndromish - because Debian is held behind times by
> lack of decision making, we start finding good things in being behind.
Do you realize that fedora is the beta version for red hat? They use the
community to get free testing for their commercial product.
Personally as a deb
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:10:41PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > This kind of madness is precisely described here:
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
> [zillionth link to "linux is not about choice mail"]
Because it's a very good read, still years late
On 27-05-13 21:56, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 27 mai 2013 à 09:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
>> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd,
>> upstart) or three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my
>> packages[*], if it stops the endless flamewar here. I woul
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd, upstart) or
> three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my packages[*], if it
> stops the endless flamewar here. I would also be happy to have the
> requirement to
❦ 27 mai 2013 08:38 CEST, Helmut Grohne :
>> At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
>> meta-init format that can generate an appropriate file for any of these.
>
> Are you aware of http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit (packages metainit and
> dh-metainit)? That work was st
Le lundi 27 mai 2013 à 09:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd,
> upstart) or three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my
> packages[*], if it stops the endless flamewar here. I would also be
> happy to have the requirement to sup
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ondřej Surý writes:
>
> > I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd, upstart)
> > or three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my packages[*], if
> > it stops the endless flamewar here. I would also be happy to ha
Ondřej Surý writes:
> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd, upstart)
> or three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my packages[*], if
> it stops the endless flamewar here. I would also be happy to have the
> requirement to support two (or three) of them in the De
Игорь Пашев writes:
> 2013/5/27 brian m. carlson :
>> At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
>> meta-init format that can generate an appropriate file for any of
>> these.
> http://xkcd.com/927/
Also:
"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:38:44AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:27:53PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
> > meta-init format that can generate an appropriate file for any of these.
>
> Are you aware o
Well,
each init system has it's proponents, so they can provide support (in form
of patches) for those tightly-tied package.
E.g. adopt an approach similar to our archs, setup some criteria[*] for
supporting the init system and either it can keep up and fullfil the
criteria or it won't and we dro
Hi,
On 27/05/13 at 09:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> > I find it depressing to see four init/rc systems, of which three are
> > mutually incompatible in every single possible aspect.
> >
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> I would be quite hap
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I find it depressing to see four init/rc systems, of which three are
> mutually incompatible in every single possible aspect.
>
Just my two cents.
I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd, upstart) or
three (systemd
2013/5/27 brian m. carlson :
> At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
> meta-init format that can generate an appropriate file for any of these.
http://xkcd.com/927/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:27:53PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
> meta-init format that can generate an appropriate file for any of these.
Are you aware of http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit (packages metainit and
dh-metainit)? Th
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:29:25PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I find it depressing to see four init/rc systems, of which three are
> mutually incompatible in every single possible aspect.
At the risk of adding another level of indirection, we could add a
meta-init format that can generate an ap
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:42:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 03:14 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > I partly disagree here. A good reason to reimplement part of systemd is
> > to have a portable subset of its functionality. This could be part of
> > the answer to the question of what
On 05/23/2013 03:14 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:16:18AM +0200, Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Providing a conversion script which recreates all of systemd
>> functionality would basically mean reimplemting a big part of
>> systemd in shell. Providing an interpeter
On 24 May 2013 23:16, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> 2013/5/23 Helmut Grohne :
>> * stdout/stderr to syslog redirection
>>This is possibly implementable, but needs more than a line of shell.
>
> In Solaris SMF each service has its own log file with SMF messages
> *and* all stdout/stderr
>
> pashev@bok:~
2013/5/23 Helmut Grohne :
> * stdout/stderr to syslog redirection
>This is possibly implementable, but needs more than a line of shell.
In Solaris SMF each service has its own log file with SMF messages
*and* all stdout/stderr
pashev@bok:~$ find /var/log/svc/
/var/log/svc/
/var/log/svc/netw
* Helmut Grohne:
> * supervision/service restart/heartbeat
>sysv simply does not provide this functionality.
Actually, it does, through /etc/inittab. But this capability is
rarely used.
Curiously, Fedora doesn't use systemd's service restart functionality
much, either. (By default, system
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
