Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 08.11.2013 13:48, Marko Randjelovic a écrit : On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:44:23 -0600 Conrad Nelson wrote: Not everyone is a programmer, but a lot of non-programmers are still admins but are not interested in working with shell scripts if they don't have to. We already have: skeleton, /etc/d

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 08.11.2013 12:55, Marko Randjelovic a écrit : On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:33:27 + Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system adin > tasks. It could be because I am a programmer

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:44:23 -0600 Conrad Nelson wrote: > Not everyone is a programmer, but a lot of non-programmers are still > admins but are not interested in working with shell scripts if they > don't have to. We already have: skeleton, /etc/default. I agree it's poor, but as I said, and

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:33:27 + Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > > I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system adin > > tasks. It could be because I am a programmer, but at least init > > scripts are already provid

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 08.11.2013 12:12, Marko Randjelovic a écrit : On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:06:25 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > Systemd makes > system startup more complicated and you need to know not only shell > scripts but also systemd syntax. I'm interested. Do you have a document explainin

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:06:25 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > > Systemd makes > > system startup more complicated and you need to know not only shell > > scripts but also systemd syntax. > > I'm interested. Do you have a document explaining that you need to use > shell scripts with s

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 05.11.2013 15:32, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:10:31PM +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: As simple Debian users, we indeed do not mind about portability stuff. But for Debian's maintainers, using systemd as default means that they'll have to maintain other

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:10:31PM +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > As simple Debian users, we indeed do not mind about portability > stuff. But for Debian's maintainers, using systemd as default means > that they'll have to maintain other systems for Debian Hurd and > Debian KFreeBSD.

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 04.11.2013 17:44, Conrad Nelson a écrit : LXDE, on the other hand, would be a better choice for a UNIX philosophy fan (better, not perfect, since UNIX philosophy imply that softwares discuss between them by text only, which can not really be easily done when you come to GUIs. I think that r

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 04:16:39PM +, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > > Decisions like changing such an essential part of OS should not be made > > in rush. > > It's not being done in a rush. This has been discussed at length on > debian-devel a numbe

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:06:50 + Tom H wrote: > > Well, whoever he is, he raises some valid questions. Such as - what > > logind are supposed to do? Why bother keeping unrelated projects in > > systemd git? > > He's a Gentoo developer who might be involved in OpenRC development > (he's not its

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:21:48 + Tom H wrote: > RHEL 6 (as well as Fedora 9-14) use upstart's "/sbin/init" and a few > upstart jobs. AFAIR, there are native jobs for setting up the ttys, > launching plymouth, and parsing "/proc/cmdline" in order to run > "telinit " and that's about it. sysvinit

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:37:51 -0600 Conrad Nelson wrote: > Well, there are some nice features in systemd. It's easier to work with > unit files over shell scripts. It's nice to write out how you want the > system to manage services in a declarative style over an imperative one. > Also, teh depe

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On 11/04/2013 12:22 PM, Tom H wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Conrad Nelson wrote: On 11/03/2013 10:41 AM, Reco wrote: On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:21:40 + Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: Well, there are some nice features in systemd. It's

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Conrad Nelson wrote: > On 11/04/2013 10:22 AM, Tom H wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system ad

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Conrad Nelson wrote: > On 11/03/2013 10:41 AM, Reco wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:21:40 + >> Jonathan Dowland wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: > Well, there are some nice features in systemd. It's easier to work with unit > f

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Reco wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:21:40 + > Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: > I don't know why people adopting it. I only have an option about why > distributions adapting systemd. IMO: > > Fedora - because R

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:43:36 + Tom H wrote: > smf uses manifests to manage the ksh scripts, which are far more > simple that the pre-smf rc scripts; often just a "case,start/stop/..." > mini-script. Solaris 11.1, more or less default non-X install. There're 17 scripts exceeding 10k in /lib/sv

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On 11/04/2013 10:22 AM, Tom H wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system adin tasks. It could be because I am a programmer, but at least init sc

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On 11/04/2013 04:06 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 03.11.2013 10:23, Marko Randjelovic a écrit : On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:58:45 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: _ sysvinit scripts are scripts. Scripts needs programming skills, and the sh language does not have an easy to

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On 11/03/2013 10:41 AM, Reco wrote: On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:21:40 + Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: Linux is way ahead of AIX, FreeBSD and HP-UX in this regard even if using good ol' sysvinit. So, Lennart fixed what wasn't broken in the first pl

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: >> >> I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system adin >> tasks. It could be because I am a programmer, but at least init >> scripts are already provided,

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:55:44 -0400 > John wrote: >> Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over >> init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > Decisions like changing such an essential part

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:58:45 +0100 > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: >> >> _ sysvinit scripts are scripts. Scripts needs programming skills, and >> the sh language does not have an easy to read syntax. I would in fact >> call it rathe

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Reco wrote: > On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:08:29 + > Tom H wrote: > >> Misrepresenting what systemd is and the reasons for its existence >> doesn't make sense: >> >> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html >> >> OS X and Solaris switched to launchd and smf resp

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Reco wrote: > On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:23:01 + > Tom H wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Reco wrote: >> I don't trust this guy. He's generally very abrasive and very >> aggressive. He joined or started a debian-devel thread on init systems >> and tried

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 03.11.2013 10:23, Marko Randjelovic a écrit : On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:58:45 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: _ sysvinit scripts are scripts. Scripts needs programming skills, and the sh language does not have an easy to read syntax. I would in fact call it rather obscure compare

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:21:40 + Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: > > Linux is way ahead of AIX, FreeBSD and HP-UX in this regard even if > > using good ol' sysvinit. So, Lennart fixed what wasn't broken in the > > first place. > > If that were so,

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On 03.Nov.2013, at 10:33, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:55:44 -0400 > John wrote: > >> Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over >> init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > I am sure this is not urgent, Gnome should not be

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > I find shell scripts the most efficient way to automate system adin > tasks. It could be because I am a programmer, but at least init > scripts are already provided, and small modifications should not be a > problem even for non-p

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > > and so, which would imply duplicate work. If Debian was a normal Linux > > distribution, then portability would not have been a problem. > > I don't see why Debian is not a normal Linux distibution and how > is it related to portability Debian i

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:06:06AM +0400, Reco wrote: > Linux is way ahead of AIX, FreeBSD and HP-UX in this regard even if > using good ol' sysvinit. So, Lennart fixed what wasn't broken in the > first place. If that were so, why are people adopting it? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:55:44 -0400 John wrote: > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? I am sure this is not urgent, Gnome should not be default DE and even they could easily just make two (or more) DE

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:58:45 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > _ sysvinit scripts are scripts. Scripts needs programming skills, and > the sh language does not have an easy to read syntax. I would in fact > call it rather obscure compared to various other languages I used. > Systemd

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:08:29 + Tom H wrote: > Misrepresenting what systemd is and the reasons for its existence > doesn't make sense: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html > > OS X and Solaris switched to launchd and smf respectively in 2005 and, > to borrow an expression from As

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:23:01 + Tom H wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Reco wrote: > I don't trust this guy. He's generally very abrasive and very > aggressive. He joined or started a debian-devel thread on init systems > and tried to convince people that openrc was the solution to Deb

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, wrote: > > Now, I wonder. Gnome was said portable, am I wrong? If they now have a hard > dependency on systemd, they can no longer be considered portable, since > systemd is itself only targeting linux kernels (and this is fine, since they > do not claim to be port

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Reco wrote: > On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 12:09:51 + > Tom H wrote: >> >> As I said up-thread, it's a question of decoupling logind from systemd. >> >> The Gentoo GNOME developers decided that it was simpler for them not to do >> so. >> >> Given its attachment to upsta

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joel Rees wrote: > I'm a former Fedora user. Got my start on MkLinux and openBSD, but the > companies I worked for seemed to think the commercial support approach > from Red Hat was more in line with what they needed, so I shifted to > Red Hat and followed that l

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Saturday, November 02, 2013 08:23:45 AM Joel Rees wrote: > I'm repeating myself, but good engineers don't do that. No, they don't. They prepare new footings and pour a new foundation before moving the house to the new location. It's nice to know I haven't misperceived the situation. -- To

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 02.11.2013 13:23, Joel Rees a écrit : On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:55 AM, John wrote: Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? Probably not. At least, it seems incomprehensible to me why there should ev

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 02.11.2013 13:09, Tom H a écrit : On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:42 AM, wrote: Le 01.11.2013 20:01, Tom H a écrit : On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:58 PM, wrote: Le 31.10.2013 21:06, André Nunes Batista a écrit : On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jo

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Hi. On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 12:09:51 + Tom H wrote: > As I said up-thread, it's a question of decoupling logind from systemd. > > The Gentoo GNOME developers decided that it was simpler for them not to do so. > > Given its attachment to upstart, Ubuntu must be planning to keep on > doing so; bu

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:55 AM, John wrote: > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? Probably not. At least, it seems incomprehensible to me why there should even be a debate. > Is it provoked by system

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:42 AM, wrote: > Le 01.11.2013 20:01, Tom H a écrit : >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:58 PM, wrote: >>> Le 31.10.2013 21:06, André Nunes Batista a écrit : On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: >> >>

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 01.11.2013 20:01, Tom H a écrit : On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:58 PM, wrote: Le 31.10.2013 21:06, André Nunes Batista a écrit : On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel ove

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 01.11.2013 17:07, Reco a écrit : Hi. On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:35:40 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 01.11.2013 10:23, Reco a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:58:26PM +0100, > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: >> That's not gnome which changes the boot process. It's sy

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > Le 31.10.2013 21:06, André Nunes Batista a écrit : >> On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over init systems explain

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:06 PM, André Nunes Batista wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: >>> >>> Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over >>> init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgenc

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Hi. On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:35:40 +0100 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > > > Le 01.11.2013 10:23, Reco a écrit : > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:58:26PM +0100, > > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > >> That's not gnome which changes the boot process. It's systemd. It > >> simply happen

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 31.10.2013 21:06, André Nunes Batista a écrit : On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: > > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > Is it pr

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 14:22 +, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: > > > > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > > > Is it provoked by systemd's effort to be adopted havi

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, John wrote: > > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > Is it provoked by systemd's effort to be adopted having at least found > a home with gnome, made urgent by gnome'

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 29.10.2013 21:55, John a écrit : Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? Is it provoked by systemd's effort to be adopted having at least found a home with gnome, made urgent by gnome's status as our d

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Le 29.10.2013 23:25, Neal Murphy a écrit : On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 05:48:20 PM Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 04:55:44PM -0400, John wrote: > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

Neal writes: > I think a 'next-gen' sysvinit could be developed--from sysvinit--that > would satisfy most requirements of a services monitor -- John Hasler jh

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 05:48:20 PM Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 04:55:44PM -0400, John wrote: > > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? > > I think it's largely driven by frus

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 04:55:44PM -0400, John wrote: > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? I think it's largely driven by frustration over how bipartisan the discussion is and how long it has been goin

Init system deba{te|cle}

Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? Is it provoked by systemd's effort to be adopted having at least found a home with gnome, made urgent by gnome's status as our default? Couldn't we just make XFCE the