On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Simon McVittie wrote:
> systemd is compatible with LSB (i.e. sysvinit) init scripts. So is Upstart.
If LSB were == sysvinit, and not just a subset of it, we’d
have had *much* less troubles at work during the forced move
to insserv even with file-rc.
(Spoiler: cow-orkers, espe
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 02:05:52AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 09.09.2014 01:37, schrieb Adam Borowski:
> > This is easily fixable by adding such a dependency, or making things simpler
> > by dropping the sysvinit-core package at all, returning its contents back to
> > sysvinit. In fact, this
Am 09.09.2014 01:37, schrieb Adam Borowski:
> This is easily fixable by adding such a dependency, or making things simpler
> by dropping the sysvinit-core package at all, returning its contents back to
> sysvinit. In fact, this whole split was done in a NMU by a systemd
> maintainer, so no wonders
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 02:02:33PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On the other hand, a non-GNOME wheezy user SHALL not
> be upgraded to systemd, true.
SHOULD not, but currently is:
.--==[ dist-upgrade from a bare wheezy deboostrap ]
The following NEW packages will be installed:
acl ca-certific
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Note also that a few of those things (udev, adduser, and
> libdevmapper1.02.1 for example) are likely to be on any non-chroot system
> already since they're either dependencies of other things (such as grub
> for libdevmapper1.02.1) or
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow.
This is a complete waste of time and I expect better of you in particular.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On 08/09/14 14:44, Noel Torres wrote:
> Example: having EMC Networker server softare for backups in a sysvinit
> machine
> is (relatively) easy, because the scripts for starting and stopping the
> services are (quite) standard (but very complicated) sysv scripts.
systemd is compatible with LSB
On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 16:11:02 Matthias Urlichs escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Chris Bannister:
> > > If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just
> > > tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a
> > > problem) than an "oh dear, it's so dangerous that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/08/2014 at 02:05 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm
>> talking upgrades here, not new installs.
>
> I have no clue
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 02:02:33PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> On the other hand, a non-GNOME wheezy user SHALL not
> be upgraded to systemd, true.
That is contadicted by:
https://lists.debian.org/20140907151102.go21...@smurf.noris.de
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have yo
* Josselin Mouette , 2014-09-08, 10:58:
Excuse me? Are you trying to use the fact that you and your stupid
friends are trolling about systemd all day long in order to justify
your own rants?
And I thought you couldn’t get any lower. You have a very good shovel.
OTOH, a hydraulic excavator mu
Adam Borowski wrote:
> Noel Torres writes:
> > So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take
extra pain to
> > keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go?
>
> I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1] that wa
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking
> upgrades here, not new installs.
I have no clue why we are continuing to discuss this. The ctte
resolution says that "the default init system for Linux archit
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:30:11 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen
wrote:
>You make the assumption that there's not been an tries to resolve this,
>which is wrong. As for security, well, I have a keyscript that unlocks
>my boot drive just fine, but handled through initramfs, not systemd.
Those tries are invisi
Hi,
Chris Bannister:
> > If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell
> > people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than
> > an "oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default"
> > message. :-/
>
> Surely, it should be an
Hi,
On Samstag, 6. September 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> No. I expect them all to continue running just peachy fine and seamlessly.
> I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and
> strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> On the other ha
]] Marc Haber
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
> wrote:
> >Marc Haber:
> >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> >> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} sub
On 2014-09-07, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And
> I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way.
I apparantly like pain. or maybe s/ful/less/ is the appropriate reading.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.deb
On 2014-09-07, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking
> upgrades here, not new installs.
I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And
I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way.
I do want my systems to look the
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I think that is terrible idea, because it makes us release a system
> that is lot less tested than it should be. If only fresh installs were
Nonsense. sysvinit must continue to work anyway, for various
reasons (upgrades, kfreebsd, the TC decision).
Al
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Zack Weinberg:
> > I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure
> > that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to
> > Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out ther
Hi,
Zack Weinberg:
> I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure
> that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to
> Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out there; it
If we do decide that a default switch is unsafe for too many systems, t
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
wrote:
>Marc Haber:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
>> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> >> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
>> >> to switch to
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because,
>> frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense
>> whatsoever.
> This is exactly the thing I don't agree with.
> I think _new installs_ of Jessie should use systemd
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:03:29 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 06, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my
> > pbuilder chroot:
> To be fair, most of these packages (adduser, kmod, udev and their
> dependencies, for a start) would be insta
On Sep 06, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my
> pbuilder chroot:
To be fair, most of these packages (adduser, kmod, udev and their
dependencies, for a start) would be installed anyway on a normal system
which is not a minimal chroot.
If
Sven Joachim writes:
> On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a
>> detailed analysis of this posted a while back? My vague recollection
>> was a number more on the order of a quarter of that, and with most of
>> those be
Hi,
h...@shaw.ca:
> Most people who are not OK with systemd have better things to than try to
> persuade debian-devel that the debian prject's transition to it is
> problematic, and at more than just the implementation level.
>
By now, I would sure hope so.
> More important than numbers is conte
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because,
> frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense
> whatsoever.
This is exactly the thing I don't agree with.
I think _new installs_ of Jessie should use systemd as init (by
default, anyway),
Most people who are not OK with systemd have better things to than try to persuade debian-devel that the debian prject's
transition to it is problematic, and at more than just the implementation level.
See how much fun it is to belittle? See how good it feels?
More important than numbers is co
Hi,
Noel Torres:
> Do you think it is realistic to expect them all reading some obscure
> documentation _before_ upgrading?
>
No. I expect them all to continue running just peachy fine and seamlessly.
I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and
strictly IMHO, doin
Hi,
Adam Borowski:
> Thus, Slashdot post count is more meaningful than, say, counting posts
> here on unmoderated debian-devel.
>
That doesn't change the fact that most people who are OK with systemd have,
to put it mildly, better things to do these days than to participate in yet
another "discus
Hi,
Marc Haber:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
> >> to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
Adam Borowski writes:
> Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually
> be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where
> technically-minded folks gather. There's plenty of minor blogs that are
> biased, but let's choose big sites where we can have a reaso
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 03:02:06PM +0200, Axel Wagner wrote:
> Moreover, you would need to not count posts, but unique posters, which
> will be a very hard to get, because in a lot of flames there are people
> who get one spam-address after the other, when they get blocked, which
> would further sk
Hi,
Adam Borowski writes:
> Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually
> be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where
> technically-minded folks gather.
No, this is absolutely not meaningful. To deduce anything from this, you
would have to assume th
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Noel Torres writes:
> > So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take extra pain
> > to
> > keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go?
>
> I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1
Noel Torres writes:
> On Friday, 5 de September de 2014 21:36:43 Ansgar Burchardt escribió:
>> Nothing prevents you from a, installing systemd-shim from Jessie before
>> running apt-get dist-upgrade or b, using "apt-get dist-upgrade upstart".
>>
>> I'm fairly sure I saw this question also answere
On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
>
>> systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned
>> 100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is
>> nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up.
>
> That seems much high
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
wrote:
>On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
>> to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
>> am not at all intereste
On Friday, 5 de September de 2014 21:36:43 Ansgar Burchardt escribió:
> Nothing prevents you from a, installing systemd-shim from Jessie before
> running apt-get dist-upgrade or b, using "apt-get dist-upgrade upstart".
>
> I'm fairly sure I saw this question also answered on -user@ once or
> twice
Adam Borowski writes:
> systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned
> 100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is
> nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up.
That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a
detailed a
Cameron Norman writes:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
>> then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
>> jessie in the first place.
>
> Regardless of whether I agree or not,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/05/2014 at 03:44 PM, Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs
> wrote:
>> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude}
>> subsystem not to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the
>> details o
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Noel Torres:
>> * superior: plain no
>>
> Your opinion. Mine is "hell yes". Both opinions are completely worthless,
> absent any reasoning.
> Could we please stop the "systemd is good" vs. "systemd is bad" bashing?
>
> In any case,
Hi,
Daniel Leidert:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> >In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
> >then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
> >jessie in the first place.
>
> That is nothing but wrong. [...]
> Your argument is only reasonable fo
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:25:13PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > And proposing a solution for a systemd-free (advanced) menu item in the
> > installer will be accepted too?
> If someone stands up and does the work, I guess so - but doing that is
> a non-trivial task, since systemd is seeded by
2014-09-05 17:23 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell :
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 16:07 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> 2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell :
>> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> > How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
>> > activel
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
>then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
>jessie in the first place.
That is nothing but wrong. A system upgraded will (very probably) have a
different configuration - becaus
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 16:07 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell :
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
> > actively.
> Install systemd-shim + sysvinit-core, or simpl
2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell :
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
>> to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
>> am not at all interested in)
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
> Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
> to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
> am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so
Hi,
Noel Torres:
> * superior: plain no
>
Your opinion. Mine is "hell yes". Both opinions are completely worthless,
absent any reasoning.
Could we please stop the "systemd is good" vs. "systemd is bad" bashing?
In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
then upgraded to je
53 matches
Mail list logo
