On 2013-12-22 09:31:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Milan P. Stanic" writes:
> > Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
> > (Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
> > for nearly a year.
>
> It's possible I had some local configuratio
"Milan P. Stanic" writes:
> Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
> (Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
> for nearly a year.
It's possible I had some local configuration issue of which I was unaware.
I'll probably give it another
❦ 22 décembre 2013 14:41 CET, "Milan P. Stanic" :
> Really odd. With my testing/unstable installation on amd64 and armhf
> (Asus TF101 tablet) systemd and lightdm combo works without any problem
> for nearly a year.
I am also using lightdm + systemd because slimd has some problems when
started
On Sat, 2013-12-21 at 19:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> That said, the display managers in Debian other than kdm and gdm are not
> >> ready for systemd at the moment. I had to switch to gdm3 to use systemd
> >> (by whic
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That said, the display managers in Debian other than kdm and gdm are not
>> ready for systemd at the moment. I had to switch to gdm3 to use systemd
>> (by which I mean booting with it) because neither slim nor lightdm
On 2013-12-21 18:04:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > I've spent several hours to find what was wrong with lightdm, and
> > eventually found the culprit earlier today: just the fact that the
> > systemd package was installed! So, yes, systemd currently breaks things,
> >
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> I've spent several hours to find what was wrong with lightdm, and
> eventually found the culprit earlier today: just the fact that the
> systemd package was installed! So, yes, systemd currently breaks things,
> even if it is not used (I don't use GNOME itself, sometimes
I'm replying to an old message, but...
On 2013-10-23 23:06:39 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
> > it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds sever
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:47:00PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > And this is
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
> > > i
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
> > init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
> Whoah,
]] Brian May
> On 28 October 2013 07:52, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > > - /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules - udev rules that will be active on
> > >any system with /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd present (because of logind,
> > this
> > >directory is not a good proxy for whether pid1 == syste
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 07:12:21PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> (As far as I can tell this is the actual root of the problem, at least
> for this iteration of the argument: the fact that logind now requires
> systemd.)
That's due to cgroups change. There seem to be 2 other potential
implementation
On 2013-10-27, Brian May wrote:
> * Some people say this means it needs systemd running as pid=1, same say it
> doesn't. Am still confused here.
The facts seems to be that logind/systemd in version 204 (the current
one in debian) doesn't need systemd as pid 1, but latest upstream
(version 205 and
> > * Gnome is said to work fine even on platforms that don't have
> > systemd installed.
> My understanding from what I've read is that it "works fine" except in
> that the features which the ConsoleKit-or-logind dependency provides
> aren't available. That's derived from indirect statements fro
On 10/27/2013 06:41 PM, Brian May wrote:
So my current understanding:
* Gnome use to depend on ConsoleKit.
* ConsoleKit is no longer maintained, and no one is interested in
maintaining it.
* As a result, Gnome switched to using the implementation from
systemd instead, as it has needed feature
So my current understanding:
* Gnome use to depend on ConsoleKit.
* ConsoleKit is no longer maintained, and no one is interested in
maintaining it.
* As a result, Gnome switched to using the implementation from systemd
instead, as it has needed features and is actively being maintained.
* Some
On 28 October 2013 07:52, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > - /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules - udev rules that will be active on
> >any system with /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd present (because of logind,
> this
> >directory is not a good proxy for whether pid1 == systemd).
>
> That's a bug that
]] Steve Langasek
> Formally, it only requires that the dbus services be available, which is
> given by installing the systemd package, not by running it as init.
That's actually due to a missing feature in the dbus daemon: it should
either have a way to key off init/file system features (so I c
On 2013-10-27, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
Olav is a gnome developer, yes.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http:/
Thomas Goirand (2013-10-27):
> If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
That comes to mind:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Olav+Vitters+Gnome
https://lists.debian.org/20131024192452.ga29...@bkor.dhs.org
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Can this be taken off-list? I don't care either way, I'd still take his
points even if he wasn't.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> >>> I'm fed up with repeat
On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>> I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
>>> system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
>>
>> There seems to be a trend emanating from package
> But that alone is not an argument against introducing new technologies.
> One just has to be careful in what is done.
Not against new technologies in general but if you are talking about
something which you expect every Linux user to use (when actually they
can't in deep embedded etc.) then yes
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:06 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
> > boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?
>
> Well, gdm3 does not start for a
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
> > system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
>
> There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
> I actually went to t
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> > "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
>
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:28PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
> >> is said to disable the ability of user
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:00 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> * CVE 2013-4327 - Towards a world where even simple systems and
> firewalls are vulnerable!
>
> p.s. CVE-2013-4392, CVE-2013-4391 and I think I've missed out the really
> bad one to do with remote connection.
On one hand I agree, we see s
> This is a move to SABOTAGE linux as an OS.
I have to admit if RedHat stuck to kernel work, I would be much
happier.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to
> I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
> system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some
sort of oversight on th
> * it is buggy. I did install a straightforward install of experimental
> GNOME to test if it improved even a bit, running systemd as init, and, with
> 2G RAM assigned to the machine, I got an OOM from one of systemd's
> components. Excuse me for not looking more closely but purging the machine
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:37:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> > Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> > systemd, GNOME or similar.
> > In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
> I'm missing a key bit of context her
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters
wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
>> is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
>> it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
> is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
> it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.)
GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. It has been re
Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
> I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
> sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
> incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should
[…]
> can be, and I think that the storage format I've d
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:29AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Trying to say "[GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
> > blessings on all users." is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
> Sorry, I've implicitly meant "all _of their_ users". My apologies.
I writ
Le 25/10/2013 00:39, Brian May a écrit :
> On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> mailto:cales...@scientia.net>> wrote:
>
> Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
> more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
> They continuously try to push their a
To not be provided with a choice is utterly *horrible*.
There is init, upstart and sytemd; the linux boot manager
(GRUB) is a JOKE; see extlinux - use what the kernel devsuse.
Perhaps we should appeal to the BSD community.
:wq
:q
```:q
One can't help but wonder if we've finally got enou
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> > In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
>
> I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
> require that systemd be installed? Or does it require that the init
> system be systemd?
>
> The systemd
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
> No, no, no… drop GNOME.
>
> Useless anyway.
1. Don't top-post.
2. Assume good faith.
3. This list is for discussion of Debian development, not for random
opinions.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame
On 25 October 2013 10:54, Brian May wrote:
> * The Debian packages of Gnome currently will not install on non-Linux
> systems.
>
Seems I was mislead. On hurd and kfreebsd, gnome-settings-daemon does not
depend on systemd.
http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-settings-daemon/3.8.5-2/debian/contr
On 25 October 2013 06:37, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
> require that systemd be installed? Or does it require that the init
> system be systemd?
>
Me too. Am getting rather lost as to why gnome-settings-daemon depends
on systemd.
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
> No, no, no… drop GNOME.
>
> Useless anyway.
You really think such comments will help anyone or actually lead to
dropping it? o.O
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:39 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.
Well actually it's not that easy to avoid all of it, at least you get
some libraries even when using 3rd party GTK/GNOME apps.
> Trying to say "[GNOME upstream] continuously try to [.
No, no, no… drop GNOME.
Useless anyway.
--
Mark
On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> systemd, GNOME or similar.
>
>
> In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
>
> I
On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
> more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
> They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
> blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell)
On 24/10/13 03:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
>> > Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should
>> > be
>> > separated out in the packaging.
>> Some of the services consume fun
This is a move to SABOTAGE linux as an OS.
--
Mark
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:30:41PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> systemd, GNOME or similar.
>
>
> In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
> init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
Whoah, that's not true:
sudo systemd-nspawn -bD ~/images/fedora-19
works just fine :)
Zby
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
> >
> > I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
> > from he
This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian
Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
>
> I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
> from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
> with "outrageously"?
Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war.
There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is
known
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
> GNOME deals with some critical things...
Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with "outrageously"? Do you mean some
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> systemd, GNOME or similar.
> In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
I'm missing a key bit of context here. Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that systemd be installed?
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:25:12PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
> > On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > * it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
> > > (mostly because of the above point), but if I u
On 24/10/13 16:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
> assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
> doesn't it?
I believe the effect of not having systemd-logind is that the features
for which GNOME uses systemd
Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
> On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > * it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
> > (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
> > over the whole cgroups system, requ
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> > "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wr
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?
>
> No. But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.
Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by
Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > And I for one heavily use vservers
> >
> > It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get ri
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:16 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wr
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:05 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
> >there is that.
>
> Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
> AFAICS.
I just wondered... when and how is this going to be decided? I mean,
wh
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:29:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
> was repeating what one of the proposals were.
/
| Proposed Release Goals
| ==
|
| The call for release goals has finished and we
On 10/24/2013 05:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>>
>> Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
>> there is that.
>
> Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
> AFAICS.
Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcemen
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:40 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by "holding hostile root." ?
> http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
>
> The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should
> be ready for jessie.
>
> Until then
Adrian wrote:
>
>Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
>there is that.
Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Fr
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > My apologies, I overreacted.
>
> Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
> (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
> are si
On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
>>>
>>> It's a prof
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
> My apologies, I overreacted.
Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be c
On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> What do you mean by "holding hostile root." ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should
be ready for jessie.
Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
use openvz wit
On 2013-10-23 22:22, Brian May wrote:
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon [1] has:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]
So doesn't break Gnome where system
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:46:49AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
> OpenVZ is in mainline Linux now. You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in
> Debian, as we can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know
> whether the vzct
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > And I for one heavily use vservers
> >
> > It's a professional shame of mine that we are still tryin
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski wrote:
> * it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this
> personally
>
> (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it
> right, it takes
On 24 October 2013 10:59, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> > And I for one heavily use vservers
>>
>> It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid
]] Thibaut Paumard
> The split has already been done, hasn't it? Merely installing the
> systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
> machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
> for that to happen.
No, that's not a split. That's a set of o
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > And I for one heavily use vservers
>
> It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
> some old vserver instances at $WORK.
lxc is sti
Le 24/10/2013 10:54, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work
>> that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
>> being done.
>
> I have a lot of respec
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work
> that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
> being done.
I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
it shoul
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> And I for one heavily use vservers
It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
some old vserver instances at $WORK. I am astonished to see that you are
still using them. I didn't think they'd rebased ont
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> just recall the most epic flamewar in Debian's history),
Peh it wasn't *that* epic. I recall some truly awful ones in around 2006
to which the systemd ones pale in comparison. (Do not interpret this as
a challenge.)
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:22:50PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 24 October 2013 07:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> wrote:
> > In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
>
> This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
>
> dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd6
Brian May microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
> This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
>
>
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon has:
>
> dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, m68k,
powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]
That’s just because
On 10/24/2013 10:45 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I think you'd basically need a completely separate logind
> package for non-systemd systems.
>
> And if you think this is work that "must be done", then it is YOUR
> responsibility to do it. It's not the systemd maintainers'
> responsibility to implemen
On 24 October 2013 07:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
>
This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon has:
dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The problem is the scope creep. It's perfectly fine for
> > gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;
> No, not even that, as long a
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > > [...]
> > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
> > >> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support
> > >> syst
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
> >
> > Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
> > of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
> > p
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > [...]
> >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
> >> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
> > Well, that's one more reason t
Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
>
> Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
> of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
> push an agenda. And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
>
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
> > this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
>
> Well, that's one more reason the init system and the d
On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski wrote:
> * it breaks other users of cgroups. I have not tested this personally
> (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
> over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
> kernel instance to beg
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> [...]
>> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
>> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
>
> Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
> separated out in the pack
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The problem is the scope creep. It's perfectly fine for
> gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;
No, not even that, as long as xfce4[1] and other non-GNOME environments
require gnome-settings-daem
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, please reread that mail from the release team. It is a *proposal*
> > from the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support. The
> > release team have not said that they
On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, please reread that mail from the release team. It is a *proposal* from
> the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support. The release
> team
> have not said that they have endorsed this as a release goal (and frankly,
> I
> don't e
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:06:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
> > for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
> > integration - o
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:06 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> > systemd, GNOME or similar.
>
> I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.
>
> > I wouldn't have an
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
