On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
>> > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, m
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 06:27:41AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> RE you concerns about OpenRC being in @system. Personally I'm a fan
> of getting rid of @system entirely except as something used to build
> install CDs or having some sets for convenience in building systems.
> It only exists for a f
On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
> > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use
> > "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )"
> > stuff
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
> (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use
> "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )"
> stuff at the moment.
Half the packages in portage link to libc, t
On 15-08-2012 07:32:45 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> >> > of libraries in the core sy
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
>> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
>> > package.provi
On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
> > package.provided in profiles might address this.
Huh? Not sure I understa
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every
> little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or
> whatever might help with this.
Just note that PMS specifies a few requirements about those utili
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers
On 08/14/2012 09:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on
> the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider.
Sabayon does a decent job for them.
lu
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers really believe that every single
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually lik
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, 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 o
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, 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 wit
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:47:51 -0700
Christopher Head wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
> > > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
> > > aside of OpenRC ?
> >
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
> > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
> > aside of OpenRC ?
>
> For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query
> credentials
Il 12/08/2012 09:44, Michał Górny ha scritto:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:29:43 +0200
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
aside of OpenRC ?
It's not possible at the moment. syst
On 08/07/2012 03:47 PM, Sylvain Alain wrote:
Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and
other stuff related to SystemD.
I have some basic questions about all that :
2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/K
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:29:43 +0200
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
> > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
> > aside of OpenRC ?
> It's not possible at the moment. systemd break non-systemd setups.
E
viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> First problem udev/SD has is that it can't see all the file system labels,
> for some reason it only see sda and sdb so it's able to partly proceed in
> the boot sequence, mount / (root) but can't mount anything else.
What software parses the filesystem labels when you
Il 07/08/2012 14:47, Sylvain Alain ha scritto:
Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and
other stuff related to SystemD.
I have some basic questions about all that :
1. The SystemD and Udev projetc
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.
>
>
>
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, 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 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
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
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 Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You'd have to talk to them, but I believe their goal is to go for more
> of a vertically-integrated experience (which fits more with Gnome or
> KDE than Xfce, but again the last I'd heard only Gnome was going in
> this direction so far). Ubun
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Dale wrote:
> Now, since Walter didn't like the way things are going, can he write
> code and be left in peace to do so? Maybe have a little bit of support
> while he is doing it?
++
I can't say I think that preferring mdev over an initramfs is a good
choice, but
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:31:32 -0400
> Michael Mol wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400
>>> Sylvain Alain wrote:
>>>
The KDE team seems to work on that too :
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:31:32 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400
> > Sylvain Alain wrote:
> >
> >> The KDE team seems to work on that too :
> >> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2
> >
>
Hi,
Let's cut the FUD.
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:47 -0400, Sylvain Alain wrote:
> 1. The SystemD and Udev projetcs are merged now, so what is the impact
> on the Gentoo on a short term period ?
Only the build system is merged, they're still separate binaries.
> 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400
> Sylvain Alain wrote:
>
>> The KDE team seems to work on that too :
>> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2
>
> it's actually worth it.
> more user-spread FUD or however you like to c
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400
Sylvain Alain wrote:
> The KDE team seems to work on that too :
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2
it's actually worth it.
more user-spread FUD or however you like to call it on the topic than
I'm not sure if *devs* are actually worki
The KDE team seems to work on that too :
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2
Now I understand why some devs are working hard to make Mdev working with
OpenRC.
They want to replace Udev/SystemD with Mdev/OpenRC and solve this situation.
Sylvain aka d2_racing
2012/8/7 Ric
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on
> systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss
> if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change it!) would
> be within the Gnome project.
M
Rich Freeman wrote:
> In the future it might be much harder to run Gnome on Gentoo on an OSX
> kernel, etc.
Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on
systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss
if it's good or bad (more important, the place to c
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Sylvain Alain wrote:
> Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
> activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and other
> stuff related to SystemD.
>
You and half the world. Most of the issues you raise are much big
Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and
other stuff related to SystemD.
I have some basic questions about all that :
1. The SystemD and Udev projetcs are merged now, so what is the impact on
the Gent
59 matches
Mail list logo
