On 04/05/12 17:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
>>> called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev.
>>
>> That's my idea =)
>
> a
On 04/05/12 18:02, Greg KH wrote:
> When was the last time dbus crashed on you?
Last time I used with bluez? I think about few months ago, I hadn't time
to debug the issue and I tend not to use stuff I known broken.
I know that's a chicken egg issue =|
I'm not sure if connman hanging randomly i
On 05/08/12 07:16, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 18:23 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:59:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote
>>> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> What could work is a shim or
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 18:23 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:59:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > > What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
> > > > c
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:06:52PM -0700, Greg KH wrote
> > Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not
> > want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to
> > support the system in so many different combinations. Why someone would
> > want to run Chro
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:59:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
> > > called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev.
> >
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:02:05 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
> > And what are you going to do when dbus moves into the kernel itself
> > (hint, it will be there soon)?
>
> Why stop at dbus? Why isn't libxml2 in the kernel yet?
Because kern
On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:02:05 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> And what are you going to do when dbus moves into the kernel itself
> (hint, it will be there soon)?
Why stop at dbus? Why isn't libxml2 in the kernel yet?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 05/04/12 21:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
>>> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
>>> base libaries of
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02:01AM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
(As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev)
>>>
>>> we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want
>>> busybox i
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> I'd say that Android is an operating system based on Linux. It is not
> 'the Linux "stack"'.
> I think he was wondering whether the lock-in between dbus, udev and the
> Linux kernel will reach proportions where they will be dist
On Friday 04 May 2012 21:06:52 Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not
> > want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to
> > support the system in so many different comb
Greg KH schrieb:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
>>> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
>>> base libaries of the Linux "stack
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
> > going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
> > base libaries of the Linux "stack".
>
> I was under
On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
> base libaries of the Linux "stack".
I was under the impression that in order for there to be a Linux stack,
the Linux tre
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
> > >
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02:01AM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev)
> >
> > we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want
> > busybox itself linking aga
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
> > called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev.
>
> That's my idea =)
and then, look, you have reimplemented udev
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
> >> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and the
On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote:
> What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets
> called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev.
That's my idea =)
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:22:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
> we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't
> want busybox itself linking against anything beyond the C library.
Busybox, including its mdev functionality, is targetted at small and
embedded systems. I do
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2012 15:25:58 David Leverton wrote:
If it really is just for joysticks etc it might be worth seeing if it
can be made to use XInput instead. Maybe upstream had a specific reason
not do it that way in the first place, but in general, X apps really
shouldn't
On Friday 04 May 2012 15:25:58 David Leverton wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> you need to think bigger. Chromium supports joystick inputs (which come
> >> and go) for playing games in the browser, so udev makes sense.
> >
> > So is it using libudev t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
>> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they
>> target a given ver
Luca Barbato wrote:
On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you need to think bigger. Chromium supports joystick inputs (which come and
go) for playing games in the browser, so udev makes sense.
So is it using libudev to get that information? I guess would be
possible to patch it out, probab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 11:35, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/4/12 8:02 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> I consider dbus still not reliable for core services.
>
> Just curious - why? I just have no idea about how dbus works or what are
> possible problems with it.
On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they
> target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them
> optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't g
On 5/4/12 8:02 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I consider dbus still not reliable for core services.
Just curious - why? I just have no idea about how dbus works or what are
possible problems with it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/05/12 01:37, Alec Warner wrote:
>> I would argue that the Chrome Team's idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is
>> and your idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is are vastly divergent. That is
>> totally OK and you are free to use whatever software you
On 04/05/12 01:37, Alec Warner wrote:
> I would argue that the Chrome Team's idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is
> and your idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is are vastly divergent. That is
> totally OK and you are free to use whatever software you prefer. I
> somehow doubt Chrom{e,ium} is losing tons of u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev)
>
> we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want
> busybox itself linking against anything beyond the
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:28:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
>> However, my whole point wasn't to throw stones at the chromium team -
>> I think that they've been doing a great job of fixing this problem,
>> and will continue to do so. I jus
On Thursday 03 May 2012 20:49:25 Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 May 2012 17:39:30 Walter Dnes wrote:
> >> I fail to understand why a *WEB BROWSER* needs elfutils and dbus and
> >> udev as hard-coded dependancies.
> >
> > you need to think bigger.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 03 May 2012 17:39:30 Walter Dnes wrote:
>> I think Chromium's problem is that it's based on Chrome.
>
> you've got that wrong. Chrome is based on Chromium.
>
>> And Google is "pulling an AOL"
On Thursday 03 May 2012 17:39:30 Walter Dnes wrote:
> I think Chromium's problem is that it's based on Chrome.
you've got that wrong. Chrome is based on Chromium.
> And Google is "pulling an AOL" by trying to turn Chrome into an OS for its
> Chromebooks.
ChromeOS and Chrome are run as semi-se
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:28:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> However, my whole point wasn't to throw stones at the chromium team -
> I think that they've been doing a great job of fixing this problem,
> and will continue to do so. I just was pointing out that Google's
> practice of bundling dep
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> Right, and the source tarball is ~175 MB. It's not perfect, but it's
> also far from 1 GB. The bundled libraries are included in the tarball.
I was thinking about the unpacked size - which is 1001M according to
du for chromium-18.0.10
On 4/30/12 7:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> ffmpeg upstream is not afraid of making API changes, so it has proven
> quite difficult to make chromium work with all versions on ffmpeg in
> portage, plus the bundled snapshot. When we were using the system lib,
> it would break nearly every time a new ma
On 4/30/12 6:32 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
>>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium sou
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:32:35 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the d
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:32:35 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> >> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in the
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
>> and distribute a favored binary-only
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
>> and distribute a favored binary-only
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
> and distribute a favored binary-only derivative.
err, they distribute a Chromium source tarball, a
44 matches
Mail list logo
