On 2014-12-22 19:23 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> $ ls -l /bin/dirname
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 13880 Jan 30 2007 /bin/dirname
>
> $ file /bin/dirname
> dirname: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, stripped
>
> Simila
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:55:15AM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 04:41:05PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2014-12-22 04:10 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> > > So I'm still not sure why /etc/init.d/mysql cannot find "dirname" and
> > > "basename" when running at system boot, but it
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 04:41:05PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2014-12-22 04:10 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> > So I'm still not sure why /etc/init.d/mysql cannot find "dirname" and
> > "basename" when running at system boot, but it can find them when run
> > from a terminal after boot.
>
> Maybe
On 2014-12-22 04:10 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> I rebooted and found that the path is fine:
>
> /sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin
A notable difference to the default PATH of a logged in user (with the
standard /etc/profile, anyway) is that init places /bin before /usr/bin.
> So I'm still not sure why
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:07:20PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:32:07PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2014-12-21 21:58 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> > > I know I could add a PATH statement to the init script, but this problem
> > > is my own doing and I'd like to fix it righ
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:32:07PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2014-12-21 21:58 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
>
> > The /etc/init.d/mysql script on one of my systems is complaning that it
> > can't find /bin/dirname and /bin/basename. Line 24 of the script is
> > this:
> >
> > SELF=$(cd $(dirname $
On 2014-12-21 21:58 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> The /etc/init.d/mysql script on one of my systems is complaning that it
> can't find /bin/dirname and /bin/basename. Line 24 of the script is
> this:
>
> SELF=$(cd $(dirname $0); pwd -P)/$(basename $0)
>
> Both dirname and basename live in /usr/bin, n
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Ma, 18 nov 14, 23:12:48, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I still don't think I'm seeing your point. Mail servers, and servers in
general need to be initialized, usually rely on the o/s init system, and
generally come packaged with a collection of init and utility scripts. To
dat
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 19/11/14 15:12, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 23:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I left out sendmail, but I just che
On Ma, 18 nov 14, 23:12:48, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> I still don't think I'm seeing your point. Mail servers, and servers in
> general need to be initialized, usually rely on the o/s init system, and
> generally come packaged with a collection of init and utility scripts. To
> date, every singl
Le mardi, 18 novembre 2014, 22.10:22 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Let's take the inverse view: which of these use the upstream
> > sysvinit scripts directly ? The answer, as demonstrated below, is:
> > none.
>
> Out of curiosity, how are you comparing these to the ini
On 19/11/14 15:12, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 18/11/14 23:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> I left out sendmail, but I ju
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 23:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and guess
what, no systemd service file in upstream).
xy?
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 11.50:25 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
scripts.
L
On 18/11/14 23:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and guess
> what, no systemd service file in upstream).
xy?
Hallo,
* Miles Fidelman [Sun, Nov 16 2014, 02:41:14PM]:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >On Du, 16 nov 14, 11:50:25, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>So... with systemd, one has to:
> >>- rely on packagers to generate systemd service files, and/or,
> >>- rely on systemd's support for sysvinit scripts, which
> >
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 11.50:25 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
> occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
> applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
> scripts.
Let's take the inverse v
Show us where Debian is using the file shipped by upstream.
dpkg -l | grep xymon
ii xymon-client 4.3.17-4
amd64client for the Xymon network monitor
17:25:35 weezer:~/src/xymon-4.3.17$ diff /etc/init.d/xymon-client
debian/xymon-
Am 18.11.2014 um 10:07 schrieb Ludovic Meyer :
>
> Show us where Debian is using the file shipped by upstream.
Maybe drbd?
>
> Then, tell me, is Debian wrong to not use them, or
> are the script shipped upstream deficient ?
>
> In fact, you show "they are shipping initscript",
> but tell m
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:54:16PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Given all the talk about not being ab
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Please don't top post - it's not hard to move the mouse.
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and guess
what, no systemd service file in upstream).
xy?
Ummm...
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:54:16PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >Given all the talk about not being able to i
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Please don't top post - it's not hard to move the mouse.
>
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and guess
>>> what, no systemd service file in upstream).
>> xy?
> Ummm those
Ummm those are NOT systemd scripts shipped by the upstream sendmail
developers. They ship sysvinit scripts, period. Which is my point.
Major upstream application developers do not seem to be jumping on
systemd. If anything, what I'm seeing are "oh sh&t, I guess we should
develop systemd
On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and
> guess what, no systemd service file in upstream).
xy?
Did you try Google?
https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+%2B%22sendmail.service%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&&channel=sb
>
> What do they know?
>
>
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the maj
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>>Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
> >>>occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
> >>>app
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
scripts. I just wen
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
> >occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
> >applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
> >scripts. I just went through th
Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
scripts. I just went through the documentation, and in some cases, the
source trees, for the following:
On Lu, 17 nov 14, 07:29:00, Marty wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 01:13 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >On Du, 16 nov 14, 13:22:54, Marty wrote:
> >>On 11/16/2014 11:50 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>
> >>>In the later case, one just has to read:
> >>>http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibi
On 11/17/2014 01:13 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Du, 16 nov 14, 13:22:54, Marty wrote:
On 11/16/2014 11:50 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>In the later case, one just has to read:
>http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities/
>to get very, very scared
Each one a bug as per De
On Du, 16 nov 14, 13:22:54, Marty wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 11:50 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> >In the later case, one just has to read:
> >http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities/
> >to get very, very scared
>
> Each one a bug as per Debian policy (sysvinit support). Loo
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Du, 16 nov 14, 11:50:25, Miles Fidelman wrote:
So... with systemd, one has to:
- rely on packagers to generate systemd service files, and/or,
- rely on systemd's support for sysvinit scripts, which
In the later case, one just has to read:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki
Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:50:25 -0500,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
[...]
> So... with systemd, one has to:
> - rely on packagers to generate systemd service files, and/or,
> - rely on systemd's support for sysvinit scripts, which
>
> In the later case, one just has to read:
> http://www.freedesktop.or
On 11/16/2014 11:50 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
In the later case, one just has to read:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities/
to get very, very scared
Each one a bug as per Debian policy (sysvinit support). Looks like we
have our work cut out for us.
Among the
On Du, 16 nov 14, 11:50:25, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> So... with systemd, one has to:
> - rely on packagers to generate systemd service files, and/or,
> - rely on systemd's support for sysvinit scripts, which
>
> In the later case, one just has to read:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:50:25AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it
> occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major
> applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service
> scripts.
>
> I just went through t
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:20:15PM +0530, rajiv chavan wrote:
> Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:05:44 +0530
>
> Boot-up hangs with: No more processes left in this runlevel.
>
> Boots in single mode. On init 2 hangs with
> (init) tty1 taking long to come up; but we keep wating.
> kernel 3.2.0-3-amd64
A quick
On 07/21/2014 02:39 PM, Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
Hi,
I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the CFEngine
daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
cfe:2345:respawn:/var/cfengine/bin/cf-execd
The cf-execd is re-spawned as expected, except the fact that multiple
process
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
> I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the CFEngine
> daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
>
> cfe:2345:respawn:/var/cfengine/bin/cf-execd
>
> The cf-execd is re-spawned as expected, except the fact that multiple
> proc
On 07/21/2014 04:56 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200
Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
Hi,
I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the CFEngine
daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
cfe:2345:respawn:/var/cfengine/bin/cf-execd
The cf-execd is re-sp
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:46:37 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200
> > Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the
> > > CFEngine daem
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200
> Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the CFEngine
> > daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
> >
> > cfe:2345:respawn:/var/
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200
Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the CFEngine
> daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
>
> cfe:2345:respawn:/var/cfengine/bin/cf-execd
>
> The cf-execd is re-spawned as expected, except the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
>>
>>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'
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
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
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
