Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:26:53 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Olivier Crête schrieb:
>> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't use X?
>
> Yes, through Wayland or DirectFB.
Me too!
Seriously, they're working on it, ubuntu already has a target switch-to
date (tho it's p
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:47:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200 Luca Barbato
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 Luca Barbato
>>> wrote:
[W]e could discuss about why reinventing shellscr
Luca Barbato posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:59:39 +0200 as excerpted:
> Yet I'm not used to have to reboot after issuing emerge -u world and
> most of the times I don't have even to restart X...
I suppose if you just use emerge -u @world, are running stable, and
possibly don't care about services
Peter Stuge posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:29:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> systemd isn't at all unstable in my experience, the only thing that it
> is lacking is experience among administrators.
FWIW, the "unstable" I was referring to wasn't necessarily crashing or
refusing to do its init job, but "d
Yeah me too, and the best solution win then :P
2012/8/9 Peter Stuge
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > So let people make their OpenRC+mdev systems without systemd, and let
> > people make their systemd+udev systems without OpenRC. Everybody wins.
>
> I for one expect nothing less of Gentoo.
>
>
>
Michał Górny writes:
> Considering that systemd unit files are sometimes shipped with upstream
> packages, and often they are practically equivalent to openrc init
> scripts, I'd rather see openrc supporting that file format
> as an extension and using it instead of duplicating the same thing
> i
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> So let people make their OpenRC+mdev systems without systemd, and let
> people make their systemd+udev systems without OpenRC. Everybody wins.
I for one expect nothing less of Gentoo.
//Peter
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 07:12 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't us X?
>
> That is NOT likely to happen. X Windows is about the only *nix
> windowing system around.
> There may be others, but their use is rare. Prac
On 08/09/2012 07:12 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't us X?
That is NOT likely to happen. X Windows is about the only *nix
windowing system around.
There may be others, but their use is rare. Practically all the
graphical interface software
uses X and its addons.
Olivier Crête schrieb:
> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't use X?
Yes, through Wayland or DirectFB.
Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 19:00 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork
> > > it", then "do not keep your f
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>
>> > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork
>> > it", then "do not keep your fork you
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork
> > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody
> > starts forking and/o
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I don't understand you. Greg is a Gentoo developer; he would never
> propose for Gentoo to disappear.
I wasn't suggesting he was saying it should disappear. I think his
point was that distros like Gentoo shouldn't be the first place
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
>> "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>
> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wou
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:45:28 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:27:37 +0200
> > Peter Stuge wrote:
> >
> >> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > Systemd isn't a like-for-like replacement for traditional inits.
> >> > It
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200
> > Luca Barbato wrote:
> >
> >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more
> >> than libc is stupid and dangerous.
> >
> > But you
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:30:54 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> Ok folks, I hit the wrong key; this was meant to go to the list.
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:59:39PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Yet I'm not used to have to reboot after issuing emerge -u world and
> > most of the times I don't have
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:27:37 +0200
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip]
>> > Systemd isn't a like-for-like replacement for traditional inits.
>> > It aims to be much more, so this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges
>> > comparis
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:27:37 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Systemd is a bit more like a shepherd, looking after things for
> > their entire lifecycle.
>
> This is a big part of why it is so useful.
>
> I threw out init scripts because it was retarded to not monitor
> long-ru
On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
>> libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of
> those 's
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Systemd is a bit more like a shepherd, looking after things for
> their entire lifecycle.
This is a big part of why it is so useful.
I threw out init scripts because it was retarded to not monitor
long-running processes on servers.
Those processes shouldn't fail, but someti
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> [snip]
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
>> libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries h
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> He has a perfectly reasonable argument that build time is really not
> something you should be optimising for. Build systems easily become
> overcomplicated if you try to make everyone happy, you do have to make
> choices. Anyway, I'm not sure
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
(or Debian, or other general-purpose
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
> libc is stupid and dangerous.
But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of
those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right?
> Once that concep
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
>> use it; not because of the build system.
>
> Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of sy
Not really, Linus has his own web of trust and he don't take stuff
from unknown sources, he has his liutennants and every single patch
and change must be reviewed by at least two other maintainers below
Linus.
After all, Linux does not belong to Linus and his branch is by
definition of distributed
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
> use it; not because of the build system.
Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of systemd too: it
forces you into a particular monolithic, vertically
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
>> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
>> > we all know that they
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700
Olivier Crête wrote:
> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a
> very reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you
> code is terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.
No no. If you agree with him, he's a reasonable
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
[snip]
> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
> libc is stupid and dangerous.
No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries helps
to achieve the desired goals. If one of the libraries has a bug,
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 13:31 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
> > > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
> > > we all know that
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
>
> This is
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 10:42 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 09:00 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential
> > user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus,
> > udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes
Ok folks, I hit the wrong key; this was meant to go to the list.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:59:39PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Yet I'm not used to have to reboot after issuing emerge -u world and
> most of the times I don't have even to restart X...
What if sysvinit is updated during that emerg
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:59:39PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Yet I'm not used to have to reboot after issuing emerge -u world and
> most of the times I don't have even to restart X...
What if sysvinit is updated as part of that emerge -u world? Don't you
reboot then?
William
pgpysXEoQjlOV.p
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> ...have an init as PID=1 that does
>> nothing but launch systemd and keep it propped up until it gets a
>> signal from systemd. However, that could have issues I'm just not
>> thinking of.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> ...have an init as PID=1 that does
> nothing but launch systemd and keep it propped up until it gets a
> signal from systemd. However, that could have issues I'm just not
> thinking of.
I'm not the maintainer, but this method does seem to wo
On 08/09/2012 04:02 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more
>> than libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> Why do you say?
Because libc supposedly should be stable, other libraries are a bit more
prone to radical changes and othe
On 08/09/2012 12:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
>>> the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
>>>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more
>> than libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> Why do you say?
>
> And why is libc different from other libraries, say libuuid or
> libext2fs? I mean: Why allow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/08/12 02:57 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 06:33:02 +0200 as
> excerpted:
>
> Consider... five years ago was 2007. Android hadn't been released
> yet at this point in 2007 (November, according to the LWN 2007
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more
> than libc is stupid and dangerous.
Why do you say?
And why is libc different from other libraries, say libuuid or
libext2fs? I mean: Why allow pid 1 to require libc, it could
just be statically linked.
//Pe
Duncan wrote:
> given that a number of gentoo devs support larger installations of
> gentoo and aren't likely to be wanting to switch servers, etc, to
> systemd just because it's there
I think that once they've learned systemd, they will want to switch
those servers fast.
I use it on one sort-of
On 08/09/2012 12:20 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
someone's liking?
No, we are discussing about an upstream merging two unr
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:27:29 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > 3. More support for mdev; e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
> > and (still in beta) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB
> > The next challenge is "custom mdev rules", which should be do-able.
>
> I don't think we shou
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Forking udev hadn't been considered mostly just on that premise.
>
> So someone should just *finally* fork it, rather than talking about it
> all the time.
>
++
If the sky actually
On 08/08/2012 21:53, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Yes I would like to get email notifications every time there is a
> version bump in the upstream repos. I also would like to receive an
> email notification once a month listing all the packages that I
> haven't bumped in portage.
So let's say: for eve
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:24:26 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 06:57:17 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So I really expect people to be switching to systemd 2-3 years from
>> now, and that it'll be the gentoo default in 3-5 years, tho openrc will
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
> > the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
> > someone's liking?
>
> No, we are discussing about
On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what
> the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for
> someone's liking?
No, we are discussing about an upstream merging two unrelated projects
assuring users that nothin
On 07/18/2012 08:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think we should give more support to building a system from
> a statically linked rescue suite tool.
For people wanting to shave some seconds from their boot openrc using
busybox is quite handy and should be used as default IMHO.
lu
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:48:38 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Yes, and please remove all the occurrences of 'GNU' because I don't
> > like it.
>
> We have people working on a clang/freebsd gentoo, you might help them
> and use that. It sort of works fin
On 08/07/2012 05:00 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Andreas K. Huettel" writes:
>
>> # Andreas K. Huettel (7 Aug 2012)
>> # Many display bugs and compatibility problems, does not build with
>> cups-1.6.
>> # Upstream is dead. There's no real way to support this anymore. Masked for
>>
On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes, and please remove all the occurrences of 'GNU' because I don't
> like it.
We have people working on a clang/freebsd gentoo, you might help them
and use that. It sort of works fine.
For a project Flameeyes replaced most of system using smaller
alt
On 08/07/2012 09:00 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential
> user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus,
> udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes sense, that allows
As in completely optional and easily repla
On 08/09/2012 05:55 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
our mupdf package sucks wrt bugs 407805 and 407807
It's pretty clear that the latter is an upstream problem.
We should patch it to build shared libs, with or without cooperation
from upstream.
> Will you fix it?
Absolutely
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 06:57:17 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> So I really expect people to be switching to systemd 2-3 years from
> now, and that it'll be the gentoo default in 3-5 years, tho openrc
> will almost certainly be supported in /some/ form, at least
> comparable to the
59 matches
Mail list logo
