Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. I have no clue why we are continuing to discuss this. The ctte resolution says that the default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be systemd. There is no extra provision on new installs in the resolution. If you want OPT-IN, your options are: * Ask the ctte to further clarify their position. * Raise a GR. Your options do not include: * Further pester debian-devel with this matter. That said, it certainly makes sense to document how to opt out of systemd in the release notes. I guess you just volunteered. Thanks in advance Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908060511.ga27...@alf.mars
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Adam Borowski wrote: Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take extra pain to keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go? I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1] that want to run a non-default init system to do so, yes. [1] I can also make up numbers :) Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where technically-minded folks gather. There's plenty of minor blogs that are biased, but let's choose big sites where we can have a reasonable chance of being unbiased. I chose Slashdot and it's fork, SoylentNews. Excuse me? Are you trying to use the fact that you and your stupid friends are trolling about systemd all day long in order to justify your own rants? And I thought you couldn’t get any lower. You have a very good shovel. -- .''`.Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1410166714.8969.384.camel@dsp0698014
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org, 2014-09-08, 10:58: Excuse me? Are you trying to use the fact that you and your stupid friends are trolling about systemd all day long in order to justify your own rants? And I thought you couldn’t get any lower. You have a very good shovel. OTOH, a hydraulic excavator must have been involved in writing your mail. Can we now all go back to the ground level? (Or higher?!) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908101219.ga...@jwilk.net
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/08/2014 at 02:05 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 11:12:01PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. I have no clue why we are continuing to discuss this. The ctte resolution says that the default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be systemd. There is no extra provision on new installs in the resolution. I suspect that the reason we're continuing to discuss this is that different people have different individually-reasonable understandings of what default means in this context. Was the question of the meaning of that term in this context raised / addressed in the TC discussion? I'm pretty sure at least a large fraction of the remaining disagreements I've seen under discussion lie in conflicting understandings of that meaning, and it looked as if the current discussion might be getting closer to clarifying people's conflicting understandings - which can only help, even if no official Debian position as to the meaning is decided on. - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUDZhNAAoJEASpNY00KDJrkpsP/j9XKIHooZRycTJs/a+UBOdB DYIPnbYy48Jxaz4X/txbxdTLuf7pFpg97w8eH6g54934C4OzJI+ikFMk8zydCRQW d8WFI3b4OB1zrYAnVfPV8shWbacqpzYkFC8xjylsvEvxQo1VvnKCGsKv8ymfxBdW D/YkBPCEbrbjOMZ57w06mqAX06K6z+E0XsyZqoFiUPnk2JepLANswKogRJzoKCqa MUT+vUHdK/SpmtQQe6r0LoHA8oWxpnb8gKX/svzmirUkAVjr5oDCydq8vQGePNii RF9zNNhDmwwKur7CB8IjDR20/AkclTzW2lSyZn3B+vcWVFZP+KGtQpJguhGjsvlH sER2e073+arsGIgqNMC8JHay+e6AWP0NjYI4D8ZtWPUIS0FWk70xiz3UhI1JFrBz 7Co2OeGeNj96CxeyNgY0DueaTm4LTLZ40XllWrgoGeArz4Y4Sv43ukXUJpYTXf4r a0vXnJs4ew5rc4kXmha3RNEzUC+TlGlmUxb5A5Vug4wpipH6y0c0YotDHsqQTS5h EolDFm1s7WmqPvqXZwrTxKxWDGY9B8Di31So4G+7QMaNej6joMaWP3GU1Hi6T1X3 tguQ6K+sA3L2tbIyQpGqdUvVFuMR9Nb4UjfmDchLp3VVvHYNeYhVpheCertS1yqU bS1qIf8EHk3anab747tw =UMhm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540d984d.1030...@fastmail.fm
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 16:11:02 Matthias Urlichs escribió: Hi, Chris Bannister: If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than an oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default message. :-/ Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. I am talking if we decide to use a configurable symlink, then surely systemd will have the highest priority. [*] Yes, that does mean that, if you do not do anything else, your system will boot with systemd. Which IMHO is as it should be. I do not challenge systemd being the default, but I want my own systems with configured sysvinit scripts not to be switched. Example: having EMC Networker server softare for backups in a sysvinit machine is (relatively) easy, because the scripts for starting and stopping the services are (quite) standard (but very complicated) sysv scripts. Migrating that machine to systemd just renders tens of thousands of euros useless because the backup server software will not start. Quite frankly: If you're savvy enough to do something to your init setup that is no longer supported, and at the same time stupid enough to upgrade to Jessie without reading the release notes _and_ ignore systemd-sysv's debconf notice (which doesn't exist yet, but should probably be added), then that's your own damn fault. Frankly I know lots of people who fall in that category (savvy enough and what you dismissingly call stupid enough) who would benefit a lot for that debconf notice. We should make sure that it helps also people doing remote upgrades on console command line. Regards Noel er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On 08/09/14 14:44, Noel Torres wrote: Example: having EMC Networker server softare for backups in a sysvinit machine is (relatively) easy, because the scripts for starting and stopping the services are (quite) standard (but very complicated) sysv scripts. systemd is compatible with LSB (i.e. sysvinit) init scripts. So is Upstart. If they weren't, Debian wouldn't have been able to consider them as possibilities for a default init system, given the significant number of LSB init scripts that don't have a corresponding systemd unit or Upstart job. (This horse is dead; if you insist on continuing to beat it, please at least check that you aren't aiming at a nearby straw man instead :-) S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540dba2b.8040...@debian.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This is a complete waste of time and I expect better of you in particular. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908161425.ga24...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Note also that a few of those things (udev, adduser, and libdevmapper1.02.1 for example) are likely to be on any non-chroot system already since they're either dependencies of other things (such as grub for libdevmapper1.02.1) or are already in use regardless of the init system (udev). So for the case of a small embedded system that's nonetheless running the full kernel + bootloader stack, I suspect the delta is even smaller. I can give a hard data point. A month ago, debootstrap in Jessie was still giving you a sysvinit based system. I build a VM that has a minimal debootstrap, with a very small set of packages[1], plus xfstests. In early August, this VM was 54 megabytes [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/ext2/xfstests-bld.git/tree/kvm-xfstests/test-appliance/packages This past weekend, I spent a good part of the weekend updating kvm-xfstests to use systemd, since debootstrap now forces systemd on you, and so I decided to bite the bullet and convert to systemd. This was not quite trivial, because I depended on being able to run xfstests in /etc/rc.local, and serial console getty would start up before /etc/rc.local had finished, and then HUP the entier xfstests run. Still, after fighting with the sysvinit unit scripts, I finally managed to get it all working again. The resulting VM image was 62 megabytes[2], or about 15% larger. Since the VM image generation is completely automated[3], I'm confident that this is an apples-to-apples comparison. [2] https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests/ [3] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/ext2/xfstests-bld.git/tree/kvm-xfstests/test-appliance/gen-image Cheers, - Ted P.S. Note what is required to be fully GPL compliant when distributing a VM image[4]. You need to be able to identify the precise sources for *all* of the GPL'ed packages used for a particular VM image, and it's something that most people don't bother to do. To (loosely) quote Bradley Kuhn from his recent talk at LinuxCon, it's all too easy to accidentally violate the GPL; I'm sure I've done it from time to time. [4] ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests/README -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908183223.ga6...@thunk.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote: Matthias Urlichs wrote: I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever. This is exactly the thing I don't agree with. I think _new installs_ of Jessie should use systemd as init (by default, anyway), but _upgrades_ from Wheezy or prior should continue to use whatever it is they were using before the upgrade, until the administrator takes an additional positive action to convert to something else. And I also think that additional positive action [...] Hello, I think that is terrible idea, because it makes us release a system that is lot less tested than it should be. If only fresh installs were using our default init system this part would only get very limited testing pre-freeze. The number of systems running testing or even unstable is going to be a lot higher than the number of people doing fresh installs from a d-i alpha or beta version. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/p59tdb-3i4@argenau.downhill.at.eu.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Marc Haber:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
#618862, dating back to 2011 and with no Debian maintainer reaction in
months?
This bug's latest entry asks the original reporter whether the bug still
applies.
The long, anonymous elaborate does not address the actual issue. And,
it's clear that - should the anonymous poster be correct - keyscript
is only supported for the root file system, not for any other fsses
that might get mounted later.
The systemd transition is not simple. I do not think it's reasonable to
expect the Debian maintainer to be able to reproduce every problem, so what
else would you have them do about this bug?
I would expect at least a try to keep something supported that has
been supported in Debian für years. This is a serious regression that
makes systems unbootable and up to now the only fix seems to be to
reduce security by resorting to keys typed in at boot time.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xqyd7-js...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, Zack Weinberg: I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out there; it If we do decide that a default switch is unsafe for too many systems, then I wouldn't have a problem with, for instance, adding a debconf question to systemd-sysv's preinst which tells people what to do if they don't want systemd for whatever reason. [ symlink and co-installability ] If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than an oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default message. :-/ -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140907101808.gn21...@smurf.noris.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Zack Weinberg: I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out there; it If we do decide that a default switch is unsafe for too many systems, then I wouldn't have a problem with, for instance, adding a debconf question to systemd-sysv's preinst which tells people what to do if they don't want systemd for whatever reason. [ symlink and co-installability ] If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than an oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default message. :-/ Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140907111201.GA11840@tal
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On 2014-09-07, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way. I do want my systems to look the same, no matter if it is my workstation installed-as-woody or my laptop reinstalled yesterday. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/luhiqv$8t6$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On 2014-09-07, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote: I had my systems painfully and transparantly upgraded to systemd. And I'm happy it happens. Please keep it this way. I apparantly like pain. or maybe s/ful/less/ is the appropriate reading. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/luhkds$qpi$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
]] Marc Haber
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:56:23 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Marc Haber:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I
personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
#618862, dating back to 2011 and with no Debian maintainer reaction in
months?
This bug's latest entry asks the original reporter whether the bug still
applies.
The long, anonymous elaborate does not address the actual issue. And,
it's clear that - should the anonymous poster be correct - keyscript
is only supported for the root file system, not for any other fsses
that might get mounted later.
It works for anything that's mounted from the initramfs, not just the
root file system, in addition to anything mounted by hand later, but
otherwise that's correct.
The systemd transition is not simple. I do not think it's reasonable to
expect the Debian maintainer to be able to reproduce every problem, so what
else would you have them do about this bug?
I would expect at least a try to keep something supported that has
been supported in Debian für years. This is a serious regression that
makes systems unbootable and up to now the only fix seems to be to
reduce security by resorting to keys typed in at boot time.
You make the assumption that there's not been an tries to resolve this,
which is wrong. As for security, well, I have a keyscript that unlocks
my boot drive just fine, but handled through initramfs, not systemd.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m2bnqr36e4@rahvafeir.err.no
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, On Samstag, 6. September 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: No. I expect them all to continue running just peachy fine and seamlessly. I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, I *do* expect anybody who does NOT want to switch to systemd to already know before upgrading that they'll need to do somethink non-standard if they really want to stay with sysVinit / switch to [another_init] instead, simply because they already know that the default upgrade will switch. FWIW, I fully agree. This is how I expect upgrades to Jessie and new installs will be handled. I also think installing with legacy or less widely used initsystems should be well hidden (and probably explained in the manual). I guess a good opportunity for contributors not captable of extending d-i to do this, is to contribute patches to the manual. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, Chris Bannister: If technically feasible, that would be a far better safety net (just tell people to boot with init=/sbin/sysvinit if they run into a problem) than an oh dear, it's so dangerous that we don't even install it by default message. :-/ Surely, it should be an OPT-IN choice, not an OPT-OUT one? I'm talking upgrades here, not new installs. I am talking if we decide to use a configurable symlink, then surely systemd will have the highest priority. [*] Yes, that does mean that, if you do not do anything else, your system will boot with systemd. Which IMHO is as it should be. Quite frankly: If you're savvy enough to do something to your init setup that is no longer supported, and at the same time stupid enough to upgrade to Jessie without reading the release notes _and_ ignore systemd-sysv's debconf notice (which doesn't exist yet, but should probably be added), then that's your own damn fault. [*] /etc/alternatives isn't really suitable for this, because you could not boot with an empty /etc directory. systemd wants to be able to do that (factory reset). But there are other possibilities. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140907151102.go21...@smurf.noris.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:30:11 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote: You make the assumption that there's not been an tries to resolve this, which is wrong. As for security, well, I have a keyscript that unlocks my boot drive just fine, but handled through initramfs, not systemd. Those tries are invisible in the bug report, which is bad. To investigate, I need time to set up a breakable reference system. I broke an important productive system by an unwanted upgrade to systemd once, that's not going to happen to me again. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xqell-0001dx...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Friday, 5 de September de 2014 21:36:43 Ansgar Burchardt escribió: Nothing prevents you from a, installing systemd-shim from Jessie before running apt-get dist-upgrade or b, using apt-get dist-upgrade upstart. I'm fairly sure I saw this question also answered on -user@ once or twice times (which is also the appropriate list to ask such questions). Ansgar So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take extra pain to keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go? Do you really expect millions of users to read and understand the (sometimes cryptic) release notes explaining that they must perform a not straightforward upgrade just to jave their systems up to date? Do you think it is realistic to expect them all reading some obscure documentation _before_ upgrading? Experience shows us that most of our users just do not read the Release Notes, and those who do that do it mostly after havin encountered some problem. Regards Noel er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
#618862, dating back to 2011 and with no Debian maintainer reaction in
months?
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xqbld-0005tk...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned
100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is
nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up.
That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a
detailed analysis of this posted a while back? My vague recollection was
a number more on the order of a quarter of that, and with most of those
being quite small (such as libsystemd-daemon0, which counts as a package
but which has an installed size of 72KB).
Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my
pbuilder chroot:
,
| The following NEW packages will be installed:
| acl{a} (D: systemd) adduser{a} (D: systemd) dmsetup{a} (D:
libdevmapper1.02.1)
| libcap2-bin{a} (D: systemd) libcryptsetup4{a} (D: systemd)
| libdbus-1-3{a} (P: systemd, D: systemd)
| libdevmapper1.02.1{a} (D: dmsetup, D: libcryptsetup4)
| libgcrypt11{a} (P: systemd, D: libsystemd-journal0)
| libgcrypt20{a} (D: libcryptsetup4)
| libgpg-error0{a} (D: libcryptsetup4, D: libgcrypt11, D: libgcrypt20)
| libkmod2{a} (D: systemd, D: udev) libprocps3{a} (D: procps)
| libsystemd-daemon0{a} (P: systemd) libsystemd-journal0{a} (D: systemd)
| libsystemd-login0{a} (D: systemd)
| libudev1{a} (D: libdevmapper1.02.1, D: systemd, D: udev)
| libwrap0{a} (D: systemd) procps{a} (D: udev)
| systemd{a} (P: systemd-sysv, D: systemd-sysv) systemd-sysv
| udev{a} (D: systemd)
| The following packages will be REMOVED:
| sysvinit-core
| The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
| dbus (R: libdbus-1-3) libpam-cap (R: libcap2-bin) libpam-systemd (R:
systemd)
| psmisc (R: initscripts, R: procps) tcpd (R: libwrap0)
| 0 packages upgraded, 21 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
| Need to get 0 B/4436 kB of archives. After unpacking 18.1 MB will be used.
`
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx4ljewq@turtle.gmx.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: On Friday, 5 de September de 2014 21:36:43 Ansgar Burchardt escribió: Nothing prevents you from a, installing systemd-shim from Jessie before running apt-get dist-upgrade or b, using apt-get dist-upgrade upstart. I'm fairly sure I saw this question also answered on -user@ once or twice times (which is also the appropriate list to ask such questions). So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take extra pain to keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go? I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1] that want to run a non-default init system to do so, yes. [1] I can also make up numbers :) Do you really expect millions of users to read and understand the (sometimes cryptic) release notes explaining that they must perform a not straightforward upgrade just to jave their systems up to date? Do you think it is realistic to expect them all reading some obscure documentation _before_ upgrading? No, but that shows that it's important that people get the default init system on upgrade by default: if they encounter problems, it is easier to find help if you run something close to a default installation. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/851trpcdto@tsukuyomi.43-1.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Noel Torres env...@rolamasao.org writes: So, in your POV, forcing millions of sysadmins out there to take extra pain to keep their systems running as they expect is the way to go? I think it's fair to expect the few hundred people[1] that want to run a non-default init system to do so, yes. [1] I can also make up numbers :) Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where technically-minded folks gather. There's plenty of minor blogs that are biased, but let's choose big sites where we can have a reasonable chance of being unbiased. I chose Slashdot and it's fork, SoylentNews. Counting only posts above the default threshold for a non-logged-in user: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/09/01/1844249 (article about Poettering's vision) unrelated/no clear opinion: 3 anti-poettering:10 anti-systemd in particular: 8 ambivalent: 1 pro: 0 !!! http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/08/19/0841221 (article about systemd) unrelated/no opinion: 12 pro: 1 anti: 15 http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/09/02/2037251/you-got-your-windows-in-my-linux (article about systemd-caused schism) unrelated/no opinion: 33 pro: 2 anti: 22 ambivalent:4 -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906123304.ga17...@angband.pl
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes: Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where technically-minded folks gather. No, this is absolutely not meaningful. To deduce anything from this, you would have to assume that the two variables opinion about systemd and likelihood to participate in flames about it are statistically independent. In my experience this is not the case and it certainly is not an assumption you can simply make. Moreover, you would need to not count posts, but unique posters, which will be a very hard to get, because in a lot of flames there are people who get one spam-address after the other, when they get blocked, which would further skew the numbers towards whichever camp has more disrespectfull trolls. Best, Axel Wagner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87fvg4oqb5.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 03:02:06PM +0200, Axel Wagner wrote: Moreover, you would need to not count posts, but unique posters, which will be a very hard to get, because in a lot of flames there are people who get one spam-address after the other, when they get blocked, which would further skew the numbers towards whichever camp has more disrespectfull trolls. That's Slashdot not 4chan. The discussion there is mostly civil, and spam-posters immediately get moderated into oblivion. If you want your posts to show up, you need an established account rather than something newly created. Heck, in the methodology I used, the threshold was high enough that even an old account would require at least one up-mod to get counted. Thus, Slashdot post count is more meaningful than, say, counting posts here on unmoderated debian-devel. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906133252.ga18...@angband.pl
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
Ok, so let's quantify the view of sysadmins somehow. This can actually
be done in a meaningful way: let's count posts on places where
technically-minded folks gather. There's plenty of minor blogs that are
biased, but let's choose big sites where we can have a reasonable chance
of being unbiased. I chose Slashdot and it's fork, SoylentNews.
That's not unbiased. People are more likely to write negative comments:
after all if you are happy with ${x}, why write a comment at all?
Also, given the style of the articles you selected, what kind of people
would they attract to comment? Whom would you expect to share links to
such articles with like-minded persons? Would that bias the comments
towards a certain side?
But hey, let's just do other statistics which should be more relevant to
Debian: the number of Debian developers, which also are often sysadmins
and are certainly technically-minded, that find systemd a truly horrible
choice. The last time people polled that number, it was below the small
number of developers needed to start a GR.
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85fvg497wm@tsukuyomi.43-1.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi,
Marc Haber:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:12:50 +0200, Svante Signell
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
#618862, dating back to 2011 and with no Debian maintainer reaction in
months?
This bug's latest entry asks the original reporter whether the bug still
applies. In addition, there's Upstream's request for an updated patch, from
earlier this year. Both appear not to have happened yet.
The systemd transition is not simple. I do not think it's reasonable to
expect the Debian maintainer to be able to reproduce every problem, so what
else would you have them do about this bug?
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, Adam Borowski: Thus, Slashdot post count is more meaningful than, say, counting posts here on unmoderated debian-devel. That doesn't change the fact that most people who are OK with systemd have, to put it mildly, better things to do these days than to participate in yet another discussion about how evil, overbearing, non-Unix-way-ish, buggy, or being-driven-by-a-principal-author-who-is-a-*censored* systemd is. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi, Noel Torres: Do you think it is realistic to expect them all reading some obscure documentation _before_ upgrading? No. I expect them all to continue running just peachy fine and seamlessly. I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, I *do* expect anybody who does NOT want to switch to systemd to already know before upgrading that they'll need to do somethink non-standard if they really want to stay with sysVinit / switch to [another_init] instead, simply because they already know that the default upgrade will switch. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Matthias Urlichs wrote: I also expect the Jessie upgrade to switch to systemd. Because, frankly and strictly IMHO, doing anything else makes no sense whatsoever. This is exactly the thing I don't agree with. I think _new installs_ of Jessie should use systemd as init (by default, anyway), but _upgrades_ from Wheezy or prior should continue to use whatever it is they were using before the upgrade, until the administrator takes an additional positive action to convert to something else. And I also think that additional positive action should NOT consist of installing or upgrading any package, but rather, something like changing what /sbin/init is a symlink to. (Hence the earlier statement that all init systems in the archive should be coinstallable, and that packages that need functionality provided by one specific system should detect that it isn't available at runtime, and gracefully degrade.) I think this strategy is positively _necessary_ in order to ensure that systems currently running Wheezy can safely be upgraded to Jessie. There are simply too many wacky configurations out there; it is not reasonable to demand that the systemd maintainers test them all; it is also not reasonable to demand that people with wacky configurations take extra steps prior to the upgrade in order to preserve a basically functional system afterward. (Functional enough to log in as root and make repairs, at least. Ideally without having to find another computer on which to search the interwebs for troubleshooting advice.) Even if you think this is not _technically_ necessary -- even if you think the systemd team _can_ reasonably anticipate everything that might possibly go wrong upon a forced changeover in the middle of a dpkg run, on an arbitrarily wackily customized system -- I would argue that it will provide tremendous _psychological_ reassurance to people who might be _worried_ that something will break. Yes, Debian would be saying, we recognize that this is a major, disruptive change and we have taken extra precautions to make sure it will only affect you when you are good and ready, and if something _does_ break, you can get back to the way it was very easily. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906161746.e170824...@panix5.panix.com
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de writes:
On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a
detailed analysis of this posted a while back? My vague recollection
was a number more on the order of a quarter of that, and with most of
those being quite small (such as libsystemd-daemon0, which counts as a
package but which has an installed size of 72KB).
Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my
pbuilder chroot:
Thanks, Sven. Yeah, that's more on the order of what I expected, and is
rather less than 100 packages.
,
| The following NEW packages will be installed:
| acl{a} (D: systemd) adduser{a} (D: systemd) dmsetup{a} (D:
libdevmapper1.02.1)
| libcap2-bin{a} (D: systemd) libcryptsetup4{a} (D: systemd)
| libdbus-1-3{a} (P: systemd, D: systemd)
| libdevmapper1.02.1{a} (D: dmsetup, D: libcryptsetup4)
| libgcrypt11{a} (P: systemd, D: libsystemd-journal0)
| libgcrypt20{a} (D: libcryptsetup4)
| libgpg-error0{a} (D: libcryptsetup4, D: libgcrypt11, D: libgcrypt20)
| libkmod2{a} (D: systemd, D: udev) libprocps3{a} (D: procps)
| libsystemd-daemon0{a} (P: systemd) libsystemd-journal0{a} (D: systemd)
| libsystemd-login0{a} (D: systemd)
| libudev1{a} (D: libdevmapper1.02.1, D: systemd, D: udev)
| libwrap0{a} (D: systemd) procps{a} (D: udev)
| systemd{a} (P: systemd-sysv, D: systemd-sysv) systemd-sysv
| udev{a} (D: systemd)
| The following packages will be REMOVED:
| sysvinit-core
| The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
| dbus (R: libdbus-1-3) libpam-cap (R: libcap2-bin) libpam-systemd (R:
systemd)
| psmisc (R: initscripts, R: procps) tcpd (R: libwrap0)
| 0 packages upgraded, 21 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
| Need to get 0 B/4436 kB of archives. After unpacking 18.1 MB will be used.
`
Note also that a few of those things (udev, adduser, and
libdevmapper1.02.1 for example) are likely to be on any non-chroot system
already since they're either dependencies of other things (such as grub
for libdevmapper1.02.1) or are already in use regardless of the init
system (udev). So for the case of a small embedded system that's
nonetheless running the full kernel + bootloader stack, I suspect the
delta is even smaller.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761h066vq@hope.eyrie.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Sep 06, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote: Here's what I get when replacing sysvinit-core with systemd-sysv in my pbuilder chroot: To be fair, most of these packages (adduser, kmod, udev and their dependencies, for a start) would be installed anyway on a normal system which is not a minimal chroot. If you ignore these then you are left with pretty much only the dmsetup and cryptsetup-related packages, which are quite common as well. A good but slightly dated analisys is available at https://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html . -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Hi,
Noel Torres:
* superior: plain no
Your opinion. Mine is hell yes. Both opinions are completely worthless,
absent any reasoning.
Could we please stop the systemd is good vs. systemd is bad bashing?
In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
jessie in the first place.
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905122020.gf21...@smurf.noris.de
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1409922770.2303.2.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down
actively.
Install systemd-shim + sysvinit-core, or simply pin systemd-sysv will
be enough to install the shim and don't get systemd.
So yes, this is possible, and the systemd maintainers are doing a
great job in creating a seamless transition without blocking anyone
who doesn't want to use systemd for whatever reason.
Cheers,
Matthias
--
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny9TmwgfmK2X2p7VANmLZqFjUSBWA_0Q=y7mnzb0ga4...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 16:07 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com: On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down actively. Install systemd-shim + sysvinit-core, or simply pin systemd-sysv will be enough to install the shim and don't get systemd. So yes, this is possible, and the systemd maintainers are doing a great job in creating a seamless transition without blocking anyone who doesn't want to use systemd for whatever reason. And proposing a solution for a systemd-free (advanced) menu item in the installer will be accepted too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1409930600.2303.6.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
2014-09-05 17:23 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com: On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 16:07 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 2014-09-05 15:12 GMT+02:00 Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com: On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: How? All efforts so far and bugs reported are being brought down actively. Install systemd-shim + sysvinit-core, or simply pin systemd-sysv will be enough to install the shim and don't get systemd. So yes, this is possible, and the systemd maintainers are doing a great job in creating a seamless transition without blocking anyone who doesn't want to use systemd for whatever reason. And proposing a solution for a systemd-free (advanced) menu item in the installer will be accepted too? If someone stands up and does the work, I guess so - but doing that is a non-trivial task, since systemd is seeded by debootstrap at a very early stage. It would probably be much less pain to simply swap systemd-sysv with sysvinit-core as soon as the system is installed. Cheers, Matthias -- Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caknhny9vqzqrdpbgn1j0kaamrb9uzh38wuorb6az7q6zq65...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:25:13PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: And proposing a solution for a systemd-free (advanced) menu item in the installer will be accepted too? If someone stands up and does the work, I guess so - but doing that is a non-trivial task, since systemd is seeded by debootstrap at a very early stage. It would probably be much less pain to simply swap systemd-sysv with sysvinit-core as soon as the system is installed. systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned 100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up. At least embedded systems and sbuilds do care about that extra space. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905181005.ga25...@angband.pl
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Hi,
Noel Torres:
* superior: plain no
Your opinion. Mine is hell yes. Both opinions are completely worthless,
absent any reasoning.
Could we please stop the systemd is good vs. systemd is bad bashing?
In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
jessie in the first place.
Regardless of whether I agree or not, I do not think a good way to do
this is through random dependencies of DE's or network manager.
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
Currently, this is impossible, since systemd-shim DNE on Wheezy.
Best wishes,
--
Cameron Norman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CALZWFRJttF2DdbMfvF73sjTMRbDO9_388ruPtCg4doKSww=t...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/05/2014 at 03:44 PM, Cameron Norman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs
matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude}
subsystem not to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the
details of which I personally am not at all interested in), a
dist-upgrade should do so.
Currently, this is impossible, since systemd-shim DNE on Wheezy.
But it should be possible to 'apt-get update ; apt-get install
systemd-shim ; apt-get dist-upgrade', and AFAICT that should get the job
done.
Alternately, it should be possible to pin systemd-sysv to not
installed, even when no such package as systemd-sysv exists - and then
dist-upgrade should be able to figure out the necessary dependency
resolution.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1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=vbbB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540a1b08.5020...@fastmail.fm
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
In any case, IMHO a system that's been installed with wheezy, and
then upgraded to jessie, should be identical to a system installed with
jessie in the first place.
Regardless of whether I agree or not, I do not think a good way to do
this is through random dependencies of DE's or network manager.
They are not random, unless you mean random as in [1].
[1] http://xkcd.com/221/
Thus, unless the user explicitly tells the apt{-get,itude} subsystem not
to switch to systemd (by whatever means, the details of which I personally
am not at all interested in), a dist-upgrade should do so.
Currently, this is impossible, since systemd-shim DNE on Wheezy.
Nothing prevents you from a, installing systemd-shim from Jessie before
running apt-get dist-upgrade or b, using apt-get dist-upgrade upstart.
I'm fairly sure I saw this question also answered on -user@ once or
twice times (which is also the appropriate list to ask such questions).
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85lhpxn6sk@tsukuyomi.43-1.org
Re: systemd, again (Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes: systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned 100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up. That seems much higher than I believe is the case. Wasn't there a detailed analysis of this posted a while back? My vague recollection was a number more on the order of a quarter of that, and with most of those being quite small (such as libsystemd-daemon0, which counts as a package but which has an installed size of 72KB). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx4lenze@hope.eyrie.org
