On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:20:45 PM William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:36:05PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:21:02 AM William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:36:05PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:21:02 AM William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:38:36 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/12/12 01:05 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> However, it is, in my opinion, a workaround for a problem that
>>> has been forced upon me. As soon as eudev is stable enough, I
>>> will dump
>> udev.
[1] ht
Dale wrote:
>J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> However, it is, in my opinion, a workaround for a problem that has
>> been forced upon me. As soon as eudev is stable enough, I will dump
>udev.
>>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/441004
>> Strange, I use a current-stable version of genkernel, /usr is on LVM
>and
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> However, it is, in my opinion, a workaround for a problem that has
> been forced upon me. As soon as eudev is stable enough, I will dump udev.
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/441004
> Strange, I use a current-stable version of genkernel, /usr is on LVM and the
> system boots c
On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:21:02 AM William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:38:36 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius
wrote:
> > > > On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:38:36 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > >> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the sy
Stelian Ionescu wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 12:48 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:42:23 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:31:28 +0100
>> >
>> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>> > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > > On
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 12:48 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:42:23 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:31:28 +0100
> >
> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:52:00 AM Dale wrote:
>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:51:09 AM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> An init* needs t
On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:38:36 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
> >> well.
> >
> > Just to be clear, by "init*" you mean {ini
On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:52:00 AM Dale wrote:
> J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:51:09 AM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>> An init* needs to be kept in sync with
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:51:09 AM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
>>> well.
>> Just to be clear, by "init*"
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
>> well.
>
> Just to be clear, by "init*" you mean {initrd,initramfs} , correct?
Seems likely.
However, for the most part it
On Friday, December 21, 2012 08:51:09 AM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
> > well.
>
> Just to be clear, by "init*" you mean {initrd,initr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
> well.
Just to be clear, by "init*" you mean {initrd,initramfs} , correct?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linu
On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:42:23 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:31:28 +0100
>
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100
> > >
> > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 21,
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:31:28 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100
> >
> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:57:25 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Just let me know when you have
On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100
>
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:57:25 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Just let me know when you have to maintain a lot of such systemd
> > > and upgrade, say, glibc. Then m
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:57:25 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > Just let me know when you have to maintain a lot of such systemd
> > and upgrade, say, glibc. Then maybe you'll understand.
>
> A shared /usr means I need to update ALL the
On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:57:25 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:10:22 +0100
>
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 20, 2012 09:31:36 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:27:26 +0100
> > >
> > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, Decembe
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:10:22 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2012 09:31:36 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:27:26 +0100
> >
> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:3
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 07:02:06 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> > No one has proposed moving everything to /usr. At the minimum, we would
> > still have /etc and /var in /, as well as various mountpoints. If we do
> > move those to /usr, then
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 09:31:36 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:27:26 +0100
>
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > > On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31,
> We're drifting here, but the concept is that machine-local stuff like
> configuration stays out of /usr, and generic distro stuff stays in
> /usr.
>
> A webserver for site1 vs site2 would be identical in /usr, but
> different elsewhere.
That has always been the case. In fact people have tried t
On 12/20/2012 07:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> No one has proposed moving everything to /usr. At the minimum, we would
>> still have /etc and /var in /, as well as various mountpoints. If we do
>> move those to /usr, then we effectively renamed
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> No one has proposed moving everything to /usr. At the minimum, we would
> still have /etc and /var in /, as well as various mountpoints. If we do
> move those to /usr, then we effectively renamed / to /usr, which is
> pointless. The absurdity o
On 12/20/2012 03:31 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:27:26 +0100
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> On
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:27:26 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roelev
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > >> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:13:28 -0800
Greg KH wrote:
> No, not at all, please see the web page that describes, in detail, the
> problems that has been going on for quite some time now, with the /usr
> and / partitions and packages.
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> >> As I said in an
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> > This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
>> > pushed through that separate /usr without an init
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/12/12 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it
>>> was pushed through
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 01:51:27PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it
On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
>>> pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a
>>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
> > pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a
> > supported configuration, so yes, the previous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/12/12 06:23 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> Can this topic finally be put to rest please? There is a whole
>> web page devoted to this topic, why do people blindly ignore it?
>
> This
On 12/17/2012 06:23 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> As I said in an earlier email
On 12/17/2012 04:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
not work. We are discuss
On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> >> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
>> >> not work. We
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
> pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a
> supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this
> issue.
Sorry, but that's not an accurate account
On 12/17/12 2:25 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to
spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining
about the b
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Olav Vitters wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > >> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
> > >
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
> >> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it
Olav Vitters wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
>> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it
>work.
>
>Just to repeat:
>In this thread it was claimed that a separat
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it work.
Just to repeat:
In this thread it was claimed that a separate /usr is not supported by
sy
On 12/17/2012 08:25 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>>> So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to
>>> spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to
> >spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining
> >about the behaviour of upstream is IMO very i
On 12/17/2012 05:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 03:17:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 02:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:58:43 -0500
>>> "Walter Dnes" wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:07:09PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> Waaait
On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to
spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining
about the behaviour of upstream is IMO very ironic.
No it does not, try by yourself please ^^
(or just issue and
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 03:17:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 02:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:58:43 -0500
> > "Walter Dnes" wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:07:09PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> >>> Waaait, what? Did something change lately or are you
Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:53:41 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:21:21AM +, Duncan wrote
>> Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
>>
>>> Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a
>>> bunch bugs+patches, and g
On 12/15/2012 02:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:58:43 -0500
> "Walter Dnes" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:07:09PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote
>>>
>>> Waaait, what? Did something change lately or are you just repeating
>>> the same bullshit for months?
>>
>> Older s
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:58:43 -0500
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:07:09PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> >
> > Waaait, what? Did something change lately or are you just repeating
> > the same bullshit for months?
>
> Older systemd boots OK with a separate /usr and eudev. Bu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:07:09PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote
>
> Waaait, what? Did something change lately or are you just repeating
> the same bullshit for months?
Older systemd boots OK with a separate /usr and eudev. But somehow,
somewhere along the line, as part of the merge, the udev po
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:53:41 -0500
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:21:21AM +, Duncan wrote
> > Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
> >
> > > [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs
> > > from non-systemd users wo
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:21:21AM +, Duncan wrote
> Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> > [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs
> > from non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX.
>
> Agreed, to this point.
>
> > Actua
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> I, on the other hand, hope that this isn't an indication of Gentoo not being
> interested in systemd. I'm eagerly awaiting the moment where I can "emerge
> systemd" and just have it working.
Gentoo is a community - of which you are a
Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
> [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs
> from non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX.
Agreed, to this point.
> Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a bunch
> bug
On 15/12/12 06:16, Peter Stuge wrote:
Richard Yao wrote:
Where is development now?
We have rewritten the build system and restored support for older
kernels and verified compatibility as far back as Linux 2.6.31. We have
tagged 1_beta1 and eudev is in the portage tree. A few lingering
d
61 matches
Mail list logo
