On 13.04.2017 11:27, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> For me, the first argument explain in the first mail is not this one.
> systemd is not portable on lots of system (hurd, kFreeBSD, ...),
This is just one of many arguments for not making applications
depending on it. (and they shouldn't depend on a
Vincent Danjean writes:
> I'm persuaded that ignoring this issue will lead to an unmaintanable
> Debian distribution on plateforms that do not support systemd in the
> middle/long term. But, perhaps, it is what the project wants.
> Enrico is proposing something else. I'm not sure if his propo
]] Vincent Danjean
> For me, the first argument explain in the first mail is not this
> one. systemd is not portable on lots of system (hurd, kFreeBSD, ...),
> upstream systemd is not interested in making its code portable, nor to
> stabilize its interfaces so that other system init can easily
Hi,
I do not have any strong position on this subject.
Le 13/04/2017 à 02:13, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I guess I'm confused about what you think this email will accomplish. I
> feel like it's just another round of being convinced that, since you
> dislike systemd, everyone else must also som
On 2017-04-13 10:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It would be nice if people would stop doing the same thing over and over
> again and expecting different results.
Maybe this illustrates the core of the problem: https://xkcd.com/242/
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" writes:
> So, why don't we just ask, what kind of functionality do applications
> really want (and what's the actual goal behind), and then define open
> interfaces, that can be easily implemented anywhere ?
Who's we?
The people who are happy with systemd are,
On 12 April 2017 at 09:38, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> ..[snip]..
> So, at least anybody who maintains and systemd-free environment (eg.
> platforms that dont even have it) needs run behind them and keep up.
I think what you say there answers your own question at the end of your
email about "...why p
Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (2017-04-12 08:38:26)
> I really wonder why people spent so much time in init system wars,
> instead of thinking clearly of the actual root problem to solve.
Because the debate got derailed by remarks painting other contributors
to the debate as idiots, p
On 17.02.2015 18:49, The Wanderer wrote:
Hi folks,
just digging out an older thread that was still laying around in my
inbox - w/ about 2yrs distance, I hope it was enough cool down time
so we discuss it more objectively about that.
> libsystemd0 is not a startup method, or an init system. It
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Axel Wagner wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>> what *does* concern me is that it takes such incredible (and amazing)
>> efforts by people like adam for the average end-user or sysadmin to
>> contemplate replacing {insert nameless package}.
>
> inse
Hi,
Marc Haber:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:19 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >As usual, the systemd critics are just misinformed. This comforts me.
> >because it means that their views can be easily ignored.
>
> And as usual, you don't make any effort to change the misinformation.
Simon Richter writes:
> With my embedded hat on, it would be nice if there was an easy way to
> drop this extra dependency, as it means a lot of essentially dead code
> loaded on systems that don't use systemd.
Like others, I'd be happy to support that as a build profile or build
option or somet
On Feb 18, Simon Richter wrote:
> With my embedded hat on, it would be nice if there was an easy way to
> drop this extra dependency, as it means a lot of essentially dead code
> loaded on systems that don't use systemd.
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/md/libsystemd-dummy.git/
--
ciao,
Mar
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:21:44PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > If the argument is that it should be opened with dlopen at runtime, I'm
> > quite confident that there are *many* people on debian-devel who have
> > worked with shared libraries and can spell out many reasons why that's a
> > horri
Hi,
Am 18.02.2015 um 04:32 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> If the argument is that it should be opened with dlopen at runtime, I'm
> quite confident that there are *many* people on debian-devel who have
> worked with shared libraries and can spell out many reasons why that's a
> horrible idea.
Correct.
On February 18, 2015 7:54:00 AM EST, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Steve Langasek
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson
>Leighton wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett
> wrote:
>>
>>> > So, please go
On 2015-02-18 13:54, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> that's right - i haven't. because (a) i have complete confidence in
> your technical abilities, as a group. i wouldn't use debian
> otherwise! :) and (b) this isn't a technical issue, it's a strategic
> one.
No, it's not. The issue is
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett
>> wrote:
>
>> > So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
>
>> i know what it does,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 04:32, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (Removing every package whose name contains the string "systemd" is not a
> practical, useful purpose. It's just silly.)
Perhaps we could rename the library (and the package) to:
libthis-is-not-the-library-you-are-looking-for.so.0
I guess th
Hi,
Quoting Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2015-02-17 21:31:05)
> Le lundi, 16 février 2015, 13.38:01 Adam Borowski a écrit :
> > Second, all but one (upower) of affected packages can be recompiled to
> > drop the dependency. If you bothered to read lists you're subscribed
> > to, you would probably know
Nathan Schulte writes:
> On 02/17/2015 11:49 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>> libsystemd0_is_ dynamically loaded, precisely so that userspace
>> applications can make the decision at runtime as to what to do.
> What about dynamically linked? Maybe Luke means dynamic linking
> (necessitating dynamic
On 02/17/2015 07:36 PM, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> I'm all out of patience now, and I no longer have any hope that you
> actually care about being taken seriously. I have no plans to respond
> to any future mails from you.
Hey Josh,
Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I'm a user*,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
>
> i know what it does, and what it does - technically - is *not* the
> issue that i am co
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
> i know what it does, and what it does - technically - is *not* the
> issue that i am con
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> what *does* concern me is that it takes such incredible (and amazing)
> efforts by people like adam for the average end-user or sysadmin to
> contemplate replacing {insert nameless package}.
insert libc6. Or insert perl. Or insert linux-image. And suddenly
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
i know what it does, and what it does - technically - is *not* the
issue that i am concerned about.
> and if
> for some reason you still consider it a problem after doing
It's not the fact that you wrote such a long email that is necessarily
the problem; it's that you've shown no signs of either reading or
comprehending most of what people have actually said to you. Instead,
you launched into a new set of diatribes that show very little sign of
having actually lear
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:54:35AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> you have the right to choose whether the situation that you are
> complicit in is something that you find acceptable or whether you do
> not. i leave it entirely to you to decide.
As a matter of fact we have already d
On 17 Feb 17:44, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> thanks for pointing that out, claude - it helps that it was someone
> else who pointed out that being uncivil by asking a *person* to go
> away doesn't make the *problem* go away.
>
> andrew: i will go away only when i am satisified that the
Le lundi, 16 février 2015, 13.38:01 Adam Borowski a écrit :
> Second, all but one (upower) of affected packages can be recompiled to
> drop the dependency. If you bothered to read lists you're subscribed
> to, you would probably know of my set of deinfected packages at:
> deb http://angband.p
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> which should help answer the question you asked: your work - fantastic
> as it is - was *impossible to find*. it doesn't even remotely come up
> on the radar of queries. *nobody knows what you've achieved* and
> that's somet
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to apologise for my mail I sent about two hours ago. I have
> overreacted mainly because of the length of the email, CAPS INSIDE and
> also because it's a topic which is being discussed for more than a year
> and which ma
Hello,
I'd like to apologise for my mail I sent about two hours ago. I have
overreacted mainly because of the length of the email, CAPS INSIDE and
also because it's a topic which is being discussed for more than a year
and which many of people here are already tired of.
I however still think that
On 02/17/2015 11:49 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
You only harm your case by misusing and confusing terminology in that
way.
>russ writes:
>
>>Alas, the resulting distribution is still hopelessly compromised by
>>the NSA, who might be even worse than Lennart Poettering. To see
>>how deep the tendri
2015-02-17 19:29 GMT+01:00 Nathan Schulte :
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 02/17/2015 11:58 AM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
> > total. Extremely rude.
>
> I for one am grateful Luke took the time to write the email he did. I
> understand it wa
Hi Andrew,
On 02/17/2015 11:58 AM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
> total. Extremely rude.
I for one am grateful Luke took the time to write the email he did. I
understand it was long and I believe that most won't even take the
time to
adam, i apologise for not being in a position to reply in-thread: as
mentioned previously i tried (via gmane) but the entire discussion is
completely missing, and i forgot to ask people in the original post to
cc me if they would like an ongoing threaded reply.
i also notice that you removed debia
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17 February 2015 at 18:20, claude juif wrote:
>> Really rude answer. Really bad.
>
> I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
> total. Extremely rude.
i did apologise in advance, and explained why i to
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:19 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>As usual, the systemd critics are just misinformed. This comforts me.
>because it means that their views can be easily ignored.
And as usual, you don't make any effort to change the misinformation.
Otoh, most systemd documen
Hi,
On 17 February 2015 at 18:20, claude juif wrote:
> Really rude answer. Really bad.
I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Feb 17 2015, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On 17/02/2015 10:55, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> ❦ 17 février 2015 10:18 GMT, Alastair McKinstry
>> :
>>
> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
> separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repa
On 02/17/2015 at 11:28 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> so, marco, you wrote:
>
>> Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.
>
> marco: understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the
> point: the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across
> vi
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:20 PM, claude juif wrote:
>
>
> 2015-02-17 17:55 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura :
>>
>> Hi Luke,
>>
>> On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> wrote:
>> > <265 lines of text and counting snipped>
>>
>> In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things
2015-02-17 17:55 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura :
> Hi Luke,
>
> On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> wrote:
> > <265 lines of text and counting snipped>
>
> In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
> on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this
Hallo,
* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [Tue, Feb 17 2015, 04:28:04PM]:
> so to summarise:
>
> * the use of libselinux1 is dormant (i.e. whilst you can't remove it
> without inconvenience, its use is entirely optional, right from the
> kernel level)
> * its development and documentation is rational
Hi Luke,
On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> <265 lines of text and counting snipped>
In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this any longer regardless
of their position on systemd.
Thanks
ok, so there's been quite a discussion, both on slashdot, where
amazingly the comments that filtered to the top were insightful and
respectful, and also here on debian-devel and debian-users. as i
normally use gmane to reply (and maintain and respect threads) but
this discussion is not *on* gmane,
❦ 17 février 2015 12:57 GMT, Alastair McKinstry :
> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
> separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
was part
2015-02-17 13:57 GMT+01:00 Alastair McKinstry :
> [...]
>
> Examination after the fact showed that if I'd had the correct packages
> installed, it would have worked.
> So from a Debian perspective this was 'notabug'.
> (modules that were not needed day-to-day had been deleted by hand to
> make spac
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 12:57 +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On 17/02/2015 10:55, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > ❦ 17 février 2015 10:18 GMT, Alastair McKinstry
> > :
> >
> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
> separate partition) has left a sour taste.
On 17/02/2015 10:55, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 17 février 2015 10:18 GMT, Alastair McKinstry
> :
>
The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
>>> systemd introduces no such breakage. Al
❦ 17 février 2015 10:18 GMT, Alastair McKinstry :
>>> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
>>> separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
>> systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
>> was partially br
On 16/02/2015 21:31, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 16, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
>> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
>> separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
> systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate pa
> > But dictatorially coming in and demanding that volunteers join you in
> > riding your hobby horse? Please leave.
>
> I did not see any dictatorial demands in his message, he gave the story
> on how to get rid of systemd _within_ Debian, nothing else.
True, but it was bait for another systemd
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 23:45 +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler
> > wrote:
> >> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
> >>>
> >>> http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debia
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>>
>>> http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
>>
>>
>> It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody compl
On Feb 16, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
> separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
was partially broken even before systemd
Hallo,
* Lisi Reisz [Mon, Feb 16 2015, 11:42:14AM]:
> On Monday 16 February 2015 08:09:19 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
> > > demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
> > > (certain) desktop environments without requ
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2015-02-16 16:26 GMT+01:00 Alastair McKinstry :
>> [...]
>> An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
>> and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
>> and in HPC systems. In all th
On 16/02/2015 16:14, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2015-02-16 16:26 GMT+01:00 Alastair McKinstry :
>> [...]
>> An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
>> and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
>> and in HPC systems. In all these I've bee
2015-02-16 16:26 GMT+01:00 Alastair McKinstry :
> [...]
> An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
> and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
> and in HPC systems. In all these I've been comfortable that I've been
> able to adapt Linux,
On 2015-02-16 16:26, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On 16/02/2015 14:41, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
>> simply do not care. I'd be surprised if most users even know what an
>> init system does, much less what the differences betwe
On 16/02/2015 14:41, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 13:47, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler
>> wrote:
>>> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
>>>
On 2015-02-16 13:47, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>>
>>> http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
>>
>>
>> It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came
On 02/16/2015 at 07:47 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler
> wrote:
>
>> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>
>>> http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
>>
>> It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jes
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>
>> http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
>
>
> It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
> that libsystemd-login0 (which is now pa
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:54:35AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to illustrate the dominance of libsystemd0, if you carry out an
> "apt-get --purge remove libsystemd0"
First, it's actual systemd packages that are a problem, libsystemd0 is
merely a harmless library which does nothing
Am 16.02.2015 um 02:54 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably alrea
On Monday 16 February 2015 08:09:19 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
> > demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
> > (certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
> > its dependencies, and after
Marco d'Itri:
> On Feb 16, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
>> always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
>> people's software freedom right to choose what to run on their system:
>> that is why
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Or, alternately, you could research how and why one would use shared
> libraries in a binary distribution to support optional features. But
> that's boring, prosaic, and nowhere near as much fun to write about.
We were discussing optional li
On Feb 16, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
> demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
> (certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
> its dependencies, and after a little invest
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> i've documented the process by which it is possible to run some of the
> debian desktop window managers (TDE, fvwm, twm etc.) without the need
> for systemd or libsystemd0 or any components related to systemd
> whatsoever.
Alas, the resulting distribution i
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
> always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
> people's software freedom right to choose what to run on their system:
People still have that right, just as they have
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/
i've documented the process by which it is possible to run some of the
debian desktop window managers (TDE, fvwm, twm etc.) without the need
for systemd or libsystemd0 or any components related to systemd
whatsoever.
the process is not without
75 matches
Mail list logo
