Hi,
2014-05-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Jordi Mallach jo...@debian.org:
Hi!
Below is a report from the recently held systemd + GNOME sprint in
Antwerp. Enjoy!
snip
We finally discussed how to tackle Bluez5. Bluez 4 is the current release
available in Debian, which is dead upstream and deprecated
Hi Jordi,
thanks for the informative report, it seems to have been an awesome sprint!
On Freitag, 2. Mai 2014, Jordi Mallach wrote:
Besides this, quite a few more topics were discussed, like trying to make
our experimental packages always installable...
if you think it would be useful, I'd be
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
* last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to
Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion!
Ever read you own signature?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the packages
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion! I suspect
but haven't mentioned that I expect the reasons for bundling these
components together to be on highly questionable grounds.
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
* last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to do.
My first mail stated it.
Did not. See below.
Why do
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:28:44AM -0007, Cameron Norman wrote:
This is incredibly unfair to those components' competitors because it is not
a fair playing field.
We are not having a sports competition here.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Cameron Norman:
I understand just fine how it is packaged. It is packaged in a way that
pushes components down other's throats and tells users to simply disable
them if they are not necessary.
So? The standard case is that they're either not really optional,
or they passively sit around,
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the packages depending
on them, or are you
Hello,
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_
Am Freitag, den 02.05.2014, 01:26 +0200 schrieb Jordi Mallach:
Below is a report from the recently held systemd + GNOME sprint in
Antwerp. Enjoy!
o_O Impressive productivity, keep up the great work!
Thank you all!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Hi,
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
before going
Am 04.05.2014 00:55, schrieb Matthias Urlichs:
Hi,
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
before going forward to yet another version
previously on this list Michael Biebl contributed:
Anyone interested in keeping standalone logind working is invited to
help the systemd-shim maintainer to implement and test this
functionality (it will most likely be using cgmanager for that as far as
I heard). Having v208 out is a
On May 04, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
packages. I know our systems have no functional use for systemd-logind
and yet lots seems to depend on it but it is less clear what depends on
which parts and so why each of the many packages do so. Whilst avoiding
If something depends on
El Sun, 4 de May 2014 a las 4:24 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it
escribió:
On May 04, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
packages. I know our systems have no functional use for
systemd-logind and yet lots seems to depend on it but it is less
clear what depends on which parts and so
On May 05, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com wrote:
Example one: someone does not need logind, but removing it would remove
their init system.
So do not try to do it.
Example two: someone needs logind, but they do not need binfmt, nspawn, or
networkd. Removing any of those would remove
El Sun, 4 de May 2014 a las 5:59 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it
escribió:
On May 05, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com wrote:
Example one: someone does not need logind, but removing it would
remove
their init system.
So do not try to do it.
Constructive solution you have got
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach jo...@debian.org wrote:
Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach jo...@debian.org wrote:
Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
I believe people pushing AppArmor in
Hi Jordi, and thanks for this interesting report!
One point I'd like to see discussed is the Bluez5 transition:
Le vendredi, 2 mai 2014, 01.26:15 Jordi Mallach a écrit :
We finally discussed how to tackle Bluez5. Bluez 4 is the current
release available in Debian, which is dead upstream and
Hi,
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
before going forward to yet another version with (probably) its own issues.
--
-- Matthias
23 matches
Mail list logo
