On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init systems.
More detailed:
1) Fix
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:30 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
udebs, new strings, new
Hi Steve,
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
One claim is changed, see below.
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In
Hi,
Philip Hands:
P.S. For those that think there's no choice when installing:
https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
I'd suggest that anyone that knows enough to have an opinion about their
preferred init will be able to manage that simple extra step with ease.
+1
I demand that Stephan Seitz may or may not have written...
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the
One claim is changed, see below.
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
One claim is changed, see below.
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get
On 29-11-2014 19:40, Svante Signell wrote:
[...]
This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
please! Use Debian as upstream (as long as it lives)
Yes, next Debian release is lendows, not jessie :(
Thanks! We appreciate less noise on these lists and on the next
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
please!
You are of course free to do that. This discussion is about what Debian
should do, however. If you wish to discuss Devuan, please do so in a
more appropriate
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:19 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
please!
You are of course free to do that. This discussion is about what Debian
should do, however. If
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
One claim is changed, see below.
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 21:27 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
But it does not seem like you are realizing what is
happening unfortunately. Debian will not be as it was historically due
to this issue. Maybe the new DDs are to young to learn from history?
Please don't patronise people. Just because
On 2014-11-29 21:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
Debian releases when it's ready. If large numbers of our users are
going to
have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to
systemd,
then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that
means
unfreezing the
2014-11-29 22:25 GMT+01:00 Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com:
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 22:01 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2014-11-29 21:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
Debian releases when it's ready. If large numbers of our users are
going to
have a bad experience with jessie as a result
Hello,
In the (last) hope that the CTTE will bring this issue on the agenda
next meeting on December 4. Additional information below and a short
summary.
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
(another partial? solution is to
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default
On 2014-11-28 14:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init systems.
It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
I
On 11/28/2014 03:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
I disagree with you, and so does CTTE, this time: they said
that existing installations should
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
interpretation before.
That was almost word by word from
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Why don't you use JavaScript? I also
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
interpretation before.
That was almost word by word from
]] Svante Signell
[...]
And according to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194
with preliminary results in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#142
the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
And according to https://bugs.debian.org/762194 with preliminary
results in https://bugs.debian.org/762194#142 the order of pre-depends
for int init package should change from
Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
to
Pre-Depends:
24 matches
Mail list logo
