On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:25:21AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:56:53 Erwan David wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:25:19AM CEST, Lisi Reisz
> said:
> > > On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:19:15 Doug wrote:
> > > > OK, guys. What is the best way to communicate
On 03/09/14 06:54, Erwan David wrote:
lauching systemd-logind (which they do) is actually requiring it, no ?
Point. (I find myself instinctively reading "requiring systemd" as
"requiring systemd as PID 1", so I tend to say "requiring a component of
the systemd suite" when talking about things
On Wed 03 Sep 2014 at 07:54:25 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:52PM CEST, Martin Read
> said:
> > On 02/09/14 19:55, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> > >Erwan David wrote:
> > >
> > >>aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
> > >>Ok no program present
Doug wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 9/3/14, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
list, and don't care what's written on it?
By and large, yes. If you want to
On 09/03/2014 01:19 AM, Doug wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 9/3/14, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
list, and don't care what's written on it?
By and la
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:56:53 Erwan David wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:25:19AM CEST, Lisi Reisz
said:
> > On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:19:15 Doug wrote:
> > > OK, guys. What is the best way to communicate with developers, not just
> > > in the Debian crew, but devs from othe
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:25:19AM CEST, Lisi Reisz said:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:19:15 Doug wrote:
> > OK, guys. What is the best way to communicate with developers, not just
> > in the Debian crew, but devs from other popular systems, like Ubuntu,
> > PCLOS, Centos, etc.
>
> The Deb
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 02:22:24AM CEST, Miles Fidelman
said:
> Martin Read wrote:
> >On 02/09/14 19:55, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> >>Erwan David wrote:
> >>
> >>>aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
> >>>Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
> >>>
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:52PM CEST, Martin Read said:
> On 02/09/14 19:55, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> >Erwan David wrote:
> >
> >>aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
> >>Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
> >>
> >>that's a lot of bugs to op
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 06:19:15 Doug wrote:
> OK, guys. What is the best way to communicate with developers, not just
> in the Debian crew, but devs from other popular systems, like Ubuntu,
> PCLOS, Centos, etc.
The Debian ones, on the Debian developers list. Though I doubt they would
to
On 09/03/2014 12:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 9/3/14, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
list, and don't care what's written on it?
By and large, yes. If you want to communicate
On 9/3/14, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>> Then again, endless spreading of FUD on a list that is powerless to do
>> anything about the situation, could, and should, be regarded as trolling.
>
> +1.
> Please stop!
-1.
Please continue. At least one new thread a week
bashing systemd.
We all need more h
On 9/3/14, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 02/09/2014 19:03, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
>>> So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
>>> list, and don't care what's written on it?
>> By and large, yes. If you want to commu
On 9/3/14, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-09-02, B wrote:
>> Hmm, this (sad) article raises a crucial question that supersedes
>> those about systemd: can we _really_ *trust* Debian to defend us
>> against morons, such as nsa and other assholes' agencies?
>
> You should worry more about your own assho
On 9/3/14, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
>> So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
>> list, and don't care what's written on it?
>
> By and large, yes. If you want to communicate with developers, communicate
>
> with de
On 9/3/14, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:41:26 +0200
> Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>> Then again, endless spreading of FUD on a list that is powerless to do
>> anything about the situation, could, and should, be regarded as
>> trolling.
>>
>> We have seen countless threads on the suppos
On 9/3/14, Erwan David wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:05:53PM CEST, Lisi Reisz
> said:
>> This endless verbosity will not make one iota of difference.
>> Lobby those who might be able to do something if you feel
>> like it, e.g. the developers. But
>> it really doesn't count as support for u
On 9/3/14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 02/09/14 16:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> This endless verbosity will not make one iota of difference.
>>> Lobby those who
>>> might be able to do something if you feel like it, e.g. the
>>> developers. But
>>> it really doesn't count
Martin Read wrote:
On 02/09/14 19:55, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
Erwan David wrote:
aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
that's a lot of bugs to open...
Erwan, the whole of my Wheezy desktop system as I kn
On 02/09/14 19:55, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
Erwan David wrote:
aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
that's a lot of bugs to open...
Erwan, the whole of my Wheezy desktop system as I know it seems to be
lo
On Tue 02 Sep 2014 at 11:55:24 -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> Erwan David wrote:
>
> >aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
> >Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
> >
> >that's a lot of bugs to open...
>
>
> Erwan, the whole of my Wheezy desk
> Then again, endless spreading of FUD on a list that is powerless to do
> anything about the situation, could, and should, be regarded as trolling.
+1.
Please stop!
- Clemens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li
Erwan David wrote:
aptitude remove systemd -> downgrade almost everything to stable...
Ok no program present in stable should depend on systemd...
that's a lot of bugs to open...
Erwan, the whole of my Wheezy desktop system as I know it seems to be
locked into 'libsystemd-login0' and imposa
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:29:06 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Erwan David writes:
> > Please read the article pointed by the OP.
>
> Nobody is going to impose any changes on the Debian packaging system.
> That's a nonstarter.
Four years ago, would you have thought that an init system requiring
hooks
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:03:41 +0100
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Do stop bellyaching to no avail. If you feel that Lennart should be
> stopped, find a way of stopping him. But this is not it.
>
> Lisi
He who forgets history is bound to repeat it.
Mid to late 1990's, lots of people were sick and tired
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 19:38:42 +0200
B wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:33:12 +0200
> Erwan David wrote:
>
> > Even if in some later version systemd works only with this kind of
> > scheme ?
>
> I join John about that, Debian as the very best packaging system,
> moving to RPM would clobber any
Le 02/09/2014 19:58, John Hasler a écrit :
> Erwan David writes:
>> Please read the article pointed by the OP.
> I wrote:
>> Nobody is going to impose any changes on the Debian packaging system.
>> That's a nonstarter.
> Erwan David writes:
>> Even if in some later version systemd works only with
Erwan David writes:
> Please read the article pointed by the OP.
I wrote:
> Nobody is going to impose any changes on the Debian packaging system.
> That's a nonstarter.
Erwan David writes:
> Even if in some later version systemd works only with this kind of
> scheme ?
Yes. Remember the LSB? W
Le 02/09/2014 19:38, B a écrit :
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:33:12 +0200
> Erwan David wrote:
>
>> Even if in some later version systemd works only with this kind of
>> scheme ?
> I join John about that, Debian as the very best packaging system,
> moving to RPM would clobber any hope to stay in t
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:33:12 +0200
Erwan David wrote:
> Even if in some later version systemd works only with this kind of
> scheme ?
I join John about that, Debian as the very best packaging system,
moving to RPM would clobber any hope to stay in the lead, despite
the A grade quality of its mai
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:06:29 +0200
Erwan David wrote:
> So which lists are you
> speaking of ?
The systemd list, may be?
OK, I ->[]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https:/
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:04:45 + (UTC)
Curt wrote:
> You should worry more about your own assholes and morons (of course,
> that doesn't "sell" to the gallery as well, now does it?)
>
> http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2014/03/20/dgse-orange-des-liaisons-incestueuses_4386264_3210.htm
Le 02/09/2014 19:29, John Hasler a écrit :
> Erwan David writes:
>> Please read the article pointed by the OP.
> Nobody is going to impose any changes on the Debian packaging system.
> That's a nonstarter.
Even if in some later version systemd works only with this kind of scheme ?
--
To UNSUBSC
Erwan David writes:
> Please read the article pointed by the OP.
Nobody is going to impose any changes on the Debian packaging system.
That's a nonstarter.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 18:06:29 Erwan David wrote:
> Please read the article pointed by the OP.
I have.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20
Le 02/09/2014 19:03, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
>> So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
>> list, and don't care what's written on it?
> By and large, yes. If you want to communicate with developers, communicate
On 2014-09-02, B wrote:
>
> Hmm, this (sad) article raises a crucial question that supersedes
> those about systemd: can we _really_ *trust* Debian to defend us
> against morons, such as nsa and other assholes' agencies?
>
You should worry more about your own assholes and morons (of course,
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 17:06:58 Steve Litt wrote:
> So, Lisi, is it your contention that the developers don't look at this
> list, and don't care what's written on it?
By and large, yes. If you want to communicate with developers, communicate
with developers. Some of them hang around here
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:41:26 +0200
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
> Then again, endless spreading of FUD on a list that is powerless to do
> anything about the situation, could, and should, be regarded as
> trolling.
>
> We have seen countless threads on the supposed evilness of systemd,
> all origi
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:05:53 +0100
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
> > So is this vision of the future not likely to affect Debian, then? I
> > get the impression it is expected to do so.
>
> This endless verbosity will n
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:05:33 -0700
Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> Maybe you should do some reading and maybe run Debian testing
> http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and-the-impotent-rage-against-systemd/
>
Hmm, this (sad) article raises a crucial question that supersedes
those a
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 02/09/14 16:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
Reading:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:41:26 +0200
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> Then again, endless spreading of FUD on a list that is powerless to do
> anything about the situation, could, and should, be regarded as
> trolling.
There is a good reason to keep FUD heated: the bigger and the deeper
the project is a
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:05:53PM CEST, Lisi Reisz said:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
> >
> > Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
> > > > Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
> > > > > Readi
On 02/09/14 16:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
>>>
>>> Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
> Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
>> Reading:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
Reading:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-system
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:52:46 Joe wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
>
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
> > > Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
> > > > Reading:
> > > > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:49 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
> > Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
> >
> > > Reading:
> > > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
> > >
> > > systemd's upstream is explicit
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:48AM +, KD wrote:
> Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
>
> > Reading:
> > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
> >
> > systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
> > Linux distros, not in the minor sens
Dan Ritter randomstring.org> writes:
> Reading:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
>
> systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
> Linux distros, not in the minor sense of being supported on
> every system but in the major sense of m
Dan Ritter wrote:
Reading:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
Linux distros, not in the minor sense of being supported on
every system but in the major sense of making package management
confo
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:50:04 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> No, no. Make the kernel part of Systemd. And X as well.
In this case, why not making only one package of the whole distro:
systemd-all-in-one.deb-rpm-gz ;)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
Steve Litt writes:
> Let's rename the Linux Kernel to the Systemd Kernel. Then let's make
> the package manager part of the kernel.
No, no. Make the kernel part of Systemd. And X as well.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@list
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
That looks -awesome-! Great potential. Object-oriented distributions/
installations. It'll be quite a journey from here to there though :)
So many comedic opportunities shall undoubtedly present themselves.
--
To UNSU
* On 2014 01 Sep 12:43 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Reading:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
I stopped at his second bullet point. He wants to lump RPM and .deb
systems together and it's clear he hasn't got a clue. I'm also an
upstream project manage
On Mon 01 Sep 2014 at 18:17:29 -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> I hestitate to enter this thread, given its nasty tone, so please don't
> attack me if I pose some non-partisan questions.
This is not an attack. :)
Non-partisan questions are much better off being asked in a standalone
post separate fr
I hestitate to enter this thread, given its nasty tone, so please don't
attack me if I pose some non-partisan questions.
An issue came up whether debian Jessie can run without systemd. I'm
currently running Wheezy without systemd installed, but I get this:
$ dpkg -l "*systemd*" | grep ii
ii l
Dan Ritter wrote at 2014-09-01 12:26 -0500:
> Reading:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
Dan, thank you for posting this link. It is especially interesting
considering it is by Lennart Poettering. Also, I consider it relevant
to Debian users and firmly
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:26:09 -0400
Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Reading:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
>
> systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
> Linux distros, not in the minor sense of being supported on
> every system but in th
On Mon 01 Sep 2014 at 20:34:59 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 01/09/2014 20:29, Brian a écrit :
> > On Mon 01 Sep 2014 at 13:26:09 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> >> Reading:
> >> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
> >>
> >> systemd's upstream is explicitly i
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:26:09 -0400
Dan Ritter wrote:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
An article written by… one of the systemd devs………
We happen to learn that it'll also be _dependent_ on BTRFS
and (may be?, when?) support EXT4 & XFS (bad luck, for it
Le 01/09/2014 20:29, Brian a écrit :
> On Mon 01 Sep 2014 at 13:26:09 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
>> Reading:
>> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
>>
>> systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
>> Linux distros, not in the minor sense of
On Mon 01 Sep 2014 at 13:26:09 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Reading:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
>
> systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
> Linux distros, not in the minor sense of being supported on
> every system but in
Reading:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
systemd's upstream is explicitly interested in taking over all
Linux distros, not in the minor sense of being supported on
every system but in the major sense of making package management
conform to their own vie
64 matches
Mail list logo
