On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
- support for update-rc.d
- support for invoke-rc.d
- f
On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> well.
And even if ported and fully working it will still lack the features
needed by a modern init system.
Open
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schrieb:
> On 07/13/2013 11:46 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>> Debian systemd survey:
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~stapelber
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmo
* Marco d'Itri [2013-07-14 11:26:29 +0200]:
> On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> > OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> > still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> > well.
> And even if ported and fully working it will sti
* Scott Kitterman:
> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the
> AGPL v3 again and one implication of the license is that you can't
> locally fix a security issue without immediate disclosure. This
> doesn't fit my personal ethics at all and at least IMO makes it
> pretty
On Jul 14, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is
> > wasted on this dead end.
> It's a shame that such objections haven't been raised in a timely manner
> and through the proper channels.
I did it here and in #684396, so I think that
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I am seriously expecting that Debian will not waste time
On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I didn't know that someone is working on OpenRC
* David Kalnischkies:
> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
> any objections against any proposed project.
Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
otherwise, that any deliverable is actually used by the mentoring
organization.
(Of the
Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Debian already supports 3 (three) init systems *at once*, sysvinit,
upstart, systemd.
This is much harder that using single system.
FYI, on Dyson [1] I've made dh_installinit noop, and working on dh-smf [2]
[1] http://osdyson.org
[2] ht
On 07/14/2013 04:57 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmodified. Remain
On 07/14/2013 08:31 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
> I a
Hi,
On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > yet there isn't any fully working implementation
> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
that's still not the case, despite 684396 being announced here a year ago.
cheers
On 07/14/2013 11:40 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> yet there isn't any fully working implementation
>> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
>
> one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
> that's still not the case
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the sl
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies:
>
>> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
>> any objections against any proposed project.
>
> Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
> otherwise, that any de
Dear all,
during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
While, to put it bluntly, I think the Debian Constitution is written
somewhat sloppily, it's most likely not worth going through a GR to
get what amounts to ja
Perhaps you'd be interested in 20130105150458.ga6...@vasudev.homelinux.net
Cheers,
Paul
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
> Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
>
>
Richard Hartmann writes:
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> states that
> 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.
It is?
The
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:36:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Richard Hartmann writes:
>
> > Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> > states that
>
> > 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> > we consider free.'
>
> > It's quite ob
* Richard Hartmann:
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that
>
> 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
>
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.
The "BSD" hyperli
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Marco d'Itri wrote:
being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
I am quite sure that the quality of Debian and its continued viability
as a modern OS is way more important t
On Jul 14, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Because it would be stupid, since it requires either one of:
- implementing the equivalent of init scripts for each init system
- dumbing down the init systems to the lowest common denominator (and
when
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 02:38:02PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> >of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> >without even t
> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:
Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the time when it
matters for my concerns for debian. I disagree with many of th
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> But there is a difference between "not used after its done as the project
> proofed that it is not able to deliver something more valuable" and
> "saying midway that whatever the student does, it will be discarded".
Whatever the student will do it cannot cha
2013/7/14 Marco d'Itri :
> which is a waste of time and adds code which cannot
> be well tested.
Isn't Debian itself is a waste of time, while we have RedHat? :-P
Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.deb
Hi!
2013/7/14 Paul Tagliamonte :
> [...]
> It's also about the *student*. We want more contributors. Why throw away
> someone willing to do great work within Debian?
>
>> but just because a GSoC student is working on OpenRC in Debian
>> doesn't make it any more appealing or sensible in my eyes.
>
Kevin Chadwick writes:
> P.s. whenever I hear someone talk about Linux and Modern it is simply
> proving to show that commenter's inexperience. Only idiots *require*
> cgroups or parallelisation the latter being only required/beneficial
> when the fastest bootup is required, which is almost never
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:19:58PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> > third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> > Debian systemd survey:
>
> Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn
* Package name: hyperrogue
Version : 3.7
Upstream Author : Zeno Rogue
* URL : http://www.roguetemple.com/z/hyper.php
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : non-euclidean graphical rogue-lik
On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 15:32:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:33:57PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hmm, do you have a reference? I've looked in the gnupg git master and
> > stable-2.0 branches and I don't see any obvious mention of this on the
> > NEWS file, or commi
On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 13:09 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
> > On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
> >> Debian is doing well, and it
34 matches
Mail list logo
