On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:48:29PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:10:27PM +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > > - only init is currently handled by eselect-init, which is now using a
> > > very small wrapper POSIX shell script to redirect the calls
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect
>> init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion
>> is close to pointless.
>
> Can
Hi Luca,
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect
> init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion
> is close to pointless.
Can we please make this remain opt-in always? I too woul
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:37:57 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote
>
> > - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can
> > be left on their own tools if the want it
>
> This statement should bring the same reaction as the
On 06/03/2013 02:37 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote
>
>> - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can
>> be left on their own tools if the want it
>
> This statement should bring the same reaction as the posting that ud
El lun, 03-06-2013 a las 00:35 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió:
[...]
> To not make this a waste of time here a summary of the whole thing:
>
> - eselect init will be opt-in for the time being, people can be left on
> their own tools if the want it
> - the default init will stay sysvinit. Discussion
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote
>
>> - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can
>> be left on their own tools if the want it
>
> This statement should bring the same reaction as the posting
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote
> - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can
> be left on their own tools if the want it
This statement should bring the same reaction as the posting that udev
source was being rolled into the systemd tarball.
On 06/02/2013 08:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:15:37AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote:
>>> That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the
>>> equivalent across the board, by any means.
>>
>> Your opinion.
>
> That'
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
>
[...]
> The whole symlink/boot/fallback thing is simply a waste of technical effort.
> And blanket "your opinion" and "you didn't comment a week ago, so I don't
> have to deal with the substance of your points" don't change that.
Waste? We
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:15:37AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the
> > equivalent across the board, by any means.
>
> Your opinion.
That's not an argument for it either.
> > Firstly, we sho
11 matches
Mail list logo
