On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:48:55AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Incidentially, I don't much appreciate the counterproductive sniping
> that Jordi added in his blog post about this. Perhaps you're not aware,
> Jordi, but switching to xfce was discussed at last DebConf. It was not
> done "announced in a
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:39:44PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Of course, this dire situation has come upon us due to the strong
> interleaving of Gnome and Systemd and upower maintainers, uploading
> without making sure not to break the rest of the infrastructure.
In the original email it wa
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 12:41:09AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > Downstream health
> >
> > Upstream health
> >
> > Community
> >
> > Security
> >
> > Privacy
> >
> > Documentation
>
> I don't think these are very useful criteria, unless they lead to
> actual technical iss
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:56:50PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hmm, pre-warning if there are no fixes is not enough.
>
> Let me ask you - why is libpng still holding back so many other things?
> Because not all png deps are converted. And we are speaking about years.
>
> And just for practi
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead. That's an idea
> that's neither good nor acceptable.
I see you want to start a discussion about systemd?
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:19:42PM +0200, Axel Wagner wrote:
> that just my anecdotal evidence. As is my suspicion, that the vast
> majority of people who actually chose GNOME for it's technical merrits
> over XFCE are not people who will ever be participating in really *any*
> flamewar, as they ar
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:05:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:41:13PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> >
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Olav Vitters (o...@vitters.nl) [140808 19:12]:
> > [ support for init systems bedside systemd ]
>
> > There was also a question what should happen if *upstream* removes
> > support. That's not up to De
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:12:02PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Olav Vitters (2014-08-11 11:21:14)
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> Quite a few places in the World have poor and/or expensive internet
> >> access.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 07:41:00PM +0100, Mirosław Baran wrote:
> Olav, would you mind to clarify in what capacity are you on this list?
> (Debian user? Debian maintainer? Debian developer? GNOME upstream
> developer?
> Systemd developer? Interested independent party? Something else
> altogether?)
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this issue be
> a case in which significant concerns from/of the users about an issue
> might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak loudly for Debian and its ways
> and for what it stands f
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:14:35AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > These features cannot exist separately.
>
> If that is the case, then they should not be provided at all.
>
> That is a core disagreement here; the systemd upstream plainly rank
> those as features more valuable than either the pri
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 03:25:47AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Am I missing something, or are statements like this fraught with much
> headscratching and bewilderment? :
>
> "Note that this is a promise, not an eternal guarantee."
>
> > [0]
> > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/system
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:19:41PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> I meanwhile see the systemd issue as a social problem within debian. There are
> design issues which are REALLY controversial. In the past Debian did good by
> delaying adoption of controversial technical issues e.g. devfs and waited
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:22:12AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Ubuntu carries patches downstream to make logind work without systemd
> but with upstart instead, but I don't think that doing that is a sane
> solution.
Various GNOME code incorrectly checked for systemd-as-init before using
login
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:07:06AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'm still not convinced. Don't trust the lies from Lennart, the git
> clone tells the truth:
As a mostly lurker, I think there was already a request to be a bit more
polite on this mailing list. The is a big difference between someo
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:29:27AM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Blog posts are interesting to read, but at times I'd like to look up
> reference manuals which are more than bear minimal man pages. Whilst
> systemd ships manpages, the website has either incorrectly formatted
> wiki-pages and/or
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:56:06PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> A while ago, someone raised the possibility of recompressing PNG files.
> Unlike xz, this would save space not only on mirrors but also on live
> installed systems. PNGs are nearly incompressible so this is mostly
> independent from
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 05:28:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > Long term plan (for GNOME) is doing away with differences between
> > tarball contents and git repository.
>
> Does that mean switching away from auto
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:31:22PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Btw, I fear that systemd's binary logs are going to import this method
> of inefficient work in our world. I surely hope I am wrong on this
> count.
journalctl gives pretty much exactly the same output as
/var/log/messages and so on. As
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:31:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If we're making something GNOME-specific, we don't do that. If we make
> an application that fits into any fdo-compliant notification area, we do.
Within GNOME we usually create a freedesktop.org solution, then use that
within GNOM
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:51:11PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:46:46 -0400, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
> >Even if they are using a system
> >that allows them to go back and review their notification history when they
> >return to their system,
>
> It just occurred to me that
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
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 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, 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
> >>
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> development (because unlike the systemd developers, the upstart developers
> aren't trying to sell anyone a bill of goods about how their existing units
> are perfect and nothing will ever need to be patched downstream). But there
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 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 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 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
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:49:48AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
> in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
GNOME is not. And I'm speaking as a GNOME release team member.
A video of GNOME 3.10 ru
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 Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:33:56PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Seems I misunderstood what logind was about. I thought it would force to
> use specific Xdm implementations that would support it. So you do
> confirm that it's not the case, and that we aren't forced into using
> GDM? Or is it that
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:52:16AM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> > Simple question: logind is maintained, ConsoleKit is not. I have not
> > seen anyone raise this. Why?
>
> That one is easy. Both are written by the same predominantly mayor
> author and in some ways one project is superset of th
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:40:35PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> So to me the classc/fallback frontier seems to be a rather dark field...
> it's nice that you guys try to keep it working in Debian, but quite
> apparently GNOME upstream wants to ultimately get rid of it, and that
> *will*
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
> written". So change the code and get GNOME to behave properly.
Because you raise this again:
- No maintenance on ConsoleKit since 1.5 years, despite me/GNOME raising
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:14:41AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> maintenance. I seriously doubt that us switching away from Gnome will
> have a detectable negative impact on Gnome's rate of development, so the
> average quality of our offerings on the desktop, and the quality of that
> choice for a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:39:03AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Hi there, Olav, thanks for contributing to the discussion,
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > I don't see this happening, at all. When the GNOME release team is asked
> &
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
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
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> That is my gripe, that's the core problem in GNOME. It's why I stopped
> trying to develop code to work alongside GNOME and only work with XFCE
> and Qt. GNOME upstream are toxic.
XFCE is same as GNOME:
- Supports ConsoleKit
- Suppor
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:53:35PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> They choose the way most easy for them, which is behavior often
> encountered inside the systemd-favoring community. Too bad.
You mean ConsoleKit with this? Why GNOME? Do you know it is on
freedesktop.org? Do you know there hasn't been
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 Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:12:11AM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Indeed. And given the train wreck of contemporary Gnome, I fully welcome the
> discussion on alternative default desktops. Some people are keen to rule out
> the stakeholder issues, but a fact on the so-called agenda remains.
I sugg
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros
> of cons such as on LWN.net comments or any distro mailing list as many
> are tired of systemd discussion and this wide ranging and much of the
> stolen/borrowed
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 Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:14:57AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
> > you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
>
> XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
> not either.
I check the spec files for Fed
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> (Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support
> multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to
> lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian. I won’t miss it, but
> just saying.) Whatever CTTE and,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:41:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's a (very!) fair argument, but there's nothing in that argument
> which means it absolutely totally *has* to be part of a pid1
Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references
on debian-devel a while ago
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:29:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op 25-10-13 15:43, Olav Vitters schreef:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
> >> written&
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:58:16PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > > E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
> > > > you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
> > >
> > > XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
> > > not either.
> >
>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:23:11PM +, Mirosław Baran wrote:
>
>
> Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> >For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
> >about all this on G+:
> >https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
>
> And the RH PR circu
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:02AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Olav Vitters vitters.nl> writes:
>
> > Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references
>
> But (by the time of the jessie freeze, at least) it will need systemd to
> be pid1 to
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with
> it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it
> is an extremely small minority of Debian users but possibly? a majority
Do you have any
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:08:05PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> You have a point here. The problem is that people need to change their
> operations, which is hard for many people, let alone the case when
> emergency manuals need to be changed just for the sake of satisfying
> Lennart.
There are vari
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:23:52PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Gah! Just because the other FLOS idiots are doing it doesn’t mean
> Debian should follow.
Do you also have technical objections or some kind of reasoning behind
this?
--
Regards,
Olav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-r
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:20:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs dixit:
>
> >A systemd service file is five lines.
>
> Someone has shown that this works with sysvinit as well,
> if you use #!/path/to/some-helper as shebang.
Nice theory, but in practice it is a mess. That peopl
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:49:56AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Additionally a very good proposal for a PID 1 program was in
> http://ewontfix.com/14/ "Broken by design: systemd", copied here for
> convenience:
I like how people copy/paste blog articles. Did you read this article?
It completely
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:09:10PM +0400, Vitaliy Filippov wrote:
> I.e. for example, systemd-journal looks like the most bloated part
> of systemd to me, with its binary log format, QR codes and built-in
> HTTP server - so maybe it could be disabled via a patch? Or even
> packaged separately so yo
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:51:13PM +0400, Vitaliy Filippov wrote:
> I think Debian project is significant enough to have some influence
> on systemd development, i.e. at least send patches, and in this case
- Debian has sent patches upstream
- Mageia is *much* smaller distribution, that packager h
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:27:04AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> And this is very much what I would see in Debian. Use your desktop
> and applications of choice and you will get support, but if you
> want to change core components, you are free to do so, but you
> will lose support.
[
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:02:13PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
> >QR codes is optional
> >Built-in HTTP server is optional
> >
> >Binary logging - yeah, it logs stuff. Calling logging
> >functionality in a
> >program which is meant to log things is a bit much.
>
> It's not just "calling loggi
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:23PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> systemd dependencies of course, the vendor lock-in strategy is
> successful: (the packages below are all from the source systemd)
[..]
> Do you want more examples?
You skipped over the bit explaining:
- where the vendor lock in is?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:06:39PM +0400, Oleg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:27:04AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > It's not *my* choice, systemd is the choice of the majority of the
> > Linux community. OpenRC and upstart are used in Gentoo and Ubuntu
>
> What? I see many peo
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:05:48AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> I think this touches on - or possibly misses - a key point.
I don't think so.
> I do not trust the systemd project to not do things I consider bad or
> even insane, because they've already done such things, and they show no
> regret
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Well if a bug can be solved by killing the buggy process and getting better
> functionality than when the process is running is certainly a very very bad
> bug!
As mentioned before: File a bug.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
To UNSUBSC
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:30:24PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
> Because I want logs to be plaintext in my system, not binary.
Install syslog. Or maybe Debian will use both journal and syslog.
> And I don't see why a binary log format is needed to implement the
> stderr capture.
Try to find
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:57:18PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
> 2) Binary index isn't needed at all if you just want to print output
> of a service - you can just put output of each unit to its own log
> file and just tail it.
Now show everything of a particular user. Systemd allows you to d
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:18:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:46:13PM -0500, Maas Verri wrote:
> > Proposal: SystemD pushers/forcers be physically beaten as revenge.
>
> It *should* go without saying, but I want to make it clear that as an
> upstart developer, I find
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:48:07AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthias Urlichs
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > vita...@yourcmc.ru:
> >> Because I want logs to be plaintext in my system, not binary.
> >>
> > Why? (Seriously.)
>
> To use standard text based tools, e
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:38:16PM +0400, Vitaliy Filippov wrote:
> >>5) After all, I don't see why writing 1 regexp is a hard task. And
> >>it won't be really slower because of (4).
> >
> >A regexp is unreliable and slow. Lots of ssh blocking tools have had
> >various security issues due to this.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:48:12PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> gdm3 for example does, via systemd-logind, why don't you search for bugs
> caused by that package!
Anyone is free to provide an alternative. There is a fork and it is
planned as an alternative. That GNOME depends on a dbus interface
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:42:54PM +0400, Oleg wrote:
> A small part of a distro dev team choose to use a systemd and others users are
> simply forced to use it.
Kind of empty speak. In any distribution you have a small amount of
people who contribute loads of time. E.g. ctte people, etc. If they
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:57:53PM +0400, Oleg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:26:39PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On 02/12/2014 11:33 AM, Oleg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:37:59PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > >> On the other hand, what companies and di
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:28:49PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Please do your homework yourself and stop asking the same
> questions over and over again.
Agree, I explained various things already in the same thread. There are
indications of people who indicate they don't like the amo
Maybe time for both to agree to take this offlist or just not continue?
I don't think anyone means any harm, but arguing will just result in bad
blood IMO.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:57:57PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > Oh really? You get per-application mixing, dynamic output redirection,
> > bluetooth support, network transparency, all of that with alsa+dmix?
> No, but per application mixing with no sound coming out from the speakers is
> not
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12:09AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> (Exactly what those principles are, and/or what decisions I would have
> rejected because of them, would indeed be necessary in a discussion
> about trying to resolve that disagreement. However, I am not presently
> trying to do that;
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:38:40AM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote:
> On 26 March 2014 10:13, Cameron Norman wrote:
> [...]
> > That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind
> > API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for
> > use by desktop envi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:08:54AM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2014 03:40, Olav Vitters wrote:
> [...]
> > > I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to
> > > adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state,
> >
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:06:46PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> o GNOME classic/fallback/flashback has become obsolete by upstream AFAIK
GNOME classic is maintained, it is a set of extensions against
gnome-shell. Some distributions renamed fallback as classic, resulting
in some confusion.
> The
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:17:46AM -0700, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> >From my point of view, GNOME Flashback just doesn't have enough love
> from --pretty much-- anybody; this includes the GNOME team: no news
> about GNOME Flashback in the 3.10 or 3.12 release notes (it was first
> released in 3.8).
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:11:04PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > GNOME flashback AFAIK is a Debian thing. For sure it is NOT part of
> > GNOME. We do have GNOME classic, but you already know that. I'm a bit
> > conf
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:03:14PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> It's not that anybody needs to listen, but nobody is going to tell me
> to shut up just because I only know how the result of a job should
> look like without being able to do the job myself.
Having a detailed discussion about how syste
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Is that as "easy" as running current GNOME without systemd, which is
> surely possible?
Much easier. Note that if you want GNOME without systemd, it required
actual effort instead of doing petty jabs on mailing lists. Actual
effort was
86 matches
Mail list logo
