Serge,
I'm in the favor of having a try with OpenRC, and see what we can do,
but here, your post is a bit naive at least in some cases. Let me
explain why.
On 09/05/2012 11:47 AM, Serge wrote:
I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their
own solution instead of helping
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Sorry for writing such a long email, but I believe that having
a welcoming environment is very important for debian.
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare
Hey Svante,
On Samstag, 1. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
Svante, maybe you should
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
...
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly
Hi again,
On Sonntag, 2. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
I am completely calm. And I do apologise, I am sorry for suggesting that
somebody steps down from the project. That was wrong, admitted.
thanks! (a lot.)
However, for the statement above, calling everything not in line with
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 19:34 +0300, Serge a écrit :
Yeah, one init system, one kernel, one libc, one distribution, one
window manager, one OS. Looks like a windows-way. :)
There’s a huge difference between being able to switch between window
managers and to switch between init/kernel/libc.
Le samedi 01 septembre 2012 à 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times smaller),
Code size is a compelling argument only with the same set of features.
Which is not the case.
to
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a official Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd, and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo switches to
systemd from OpenRC and Debian switches
On 09/02/12 20:43, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a official Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd,
No.
and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo
Le 31 août 2012 10:06, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org a écrit :
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
But toy ports and toy init systems are part of what makes Debian less
Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
But toy ports and toy init systems are part of
Le Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 09:02:06PM +0200, Svante Signell a écrit :
Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
In general I am for
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it have all of those features? Should it require support from other
packages? (Are
On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Darren Salt lists...@moreofthesa.me.uk wrote:
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it
+++ Faidon Liambotis [2012-08-11 03:48 +0300]:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example,
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
If it's about just
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
One good init system can answer all our needs, while four bad ones will
certainly not.
I fully agree.
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we shouldn't be
messing around with it. Focus on the best
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
If it's about just adding more bugs without bringing anything good
with it — sure,
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we
shouldn't be messing around with it. Focus on the best solution,
period.
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless
On 08/31/2012 03:50 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
That means there is someone who will pester other maintainers to “fix”
their init scripts so that they work with another half-baked init
implementation.
Ah... And that will not happen with systemd? Come on, we all
know that we will have to
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying that you not only reduce the number
of bugs in
On 09/01/2012 04:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
There should be at least some compelling technical arguments for
OpenRC.
There are, and they have been listed already.
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times
On 09/01/12 04:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand this
On 08/19/2012 07:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the
On 08/10/2012 10:55 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 10, Philip Hands p...@hands.com wrote:
Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
On 08/10/2012 09:25 AM, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-09 23:15]:
And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
value. Linux is not about choice.
Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Strong ack. I'm using open source software
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We don't have a particularly good way of handling this situation right now
other than one-off work on each package that may need to be treated
unusually. It's a bit difficult for the maintainer to determine the
implications for the
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
should consider changing the Architecture line to
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [120820 20:21]:
I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
to mean collective interests
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the failing
port.
That's about a
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of toy ports?
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
In the beginning, ConsoleKit didn’t allow
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:41:15PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of toy ports?
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org writes:
Of course, if GNOME is unused one could just remove it completely from
those ports, but I doubt that your approach of it's just a minute of
work to RM it is welcomed. (Well, the maintainers would probably like
it, as long as there won't be bugs claiming
Le lundi 20 août 2012 à 18:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
to mean collective
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:47:43 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
We. In the same way you say we when you claim to be talking
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:14:22 +0800, Aron Xu happyaron...@gmail.com
wrote:
For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
so. I'm not using those ports everyday but I respect their passion and
efforts.
Amen. I
On 12942 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
ports.
Marc Haber wrote:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
There are people who use their time doing things like hopping across a
continent on one foot. That is a lot of work, but it's not
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
exotic ports to stop this
On 19.08.2012 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
private time to make exotic ports work to call their work toy ports.
I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
--
|8]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org writes:
If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
In the absense of regression tests, we
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
wrote:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On Aug 18, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify
On Aug 18, Aron Xu happyaron...@gmail.com wrote:
For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
so.
I am not, but I understand that arguing about this is much easier than
arguing that incomplete ports used
On 08/13/2012 04:50 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
any use case except (some) embedded systems.
If the time will come the interested parties will fork udev,
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-08-11 11:30]:
We are not dismissing any other alternative, upstart still looks like
an option.
We are dismissing just openrc because its incremental benefits are
trivial.
You don't speak on behalf of the debian project so please refrein from
using we -
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 13:27]:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 03:12:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think Steve's point is that the goal is to make Debian technically
excellent. Sometimes that means providing choice, and sometimes it
doesn't. All things being equal, I think a system that's flexible is more
technically
On Aug 13, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Isn't forking udev something similar to working on mdev? How many people
No, you just have to look at the code bases and features set to
understand why.
At many level, udev has been really annoying, breaking upgrades and so on.
I can't help
On 08/13/2012 05:20 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
As one wrote previously: mdev and OpenRC lack hostile upstreams! :)
They also lack solving large parts of the problem space.
I don't think anyone denies that fact. Hopefully, this will change.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
I did start the initial Debian
packaging work last night though.
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
I did start the initial Debian
packaging work last night though.
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
It's here:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
Just to bring this back on topic, if the initial tests of OpenRC
show it to be viable and that it's possible to upgrade seamlessly
from sysv-rc, then I would propose to drop sysv-rc entirely, rather
than having a choice here. OpenRC would be a
On 13.08.2012 00:50, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 12, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen
On Aug 12, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote:
Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)
If this will become
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely - Lennart
On Aug 12, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
any use case except (some) embedded systems.
❦ 11 août 2012 01:12 CEST, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org :
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that occasionally.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example,
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Exactly! And in this particular case, the vendor is RedHat, and
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
just because it *seem* to look better *now*,
On 08/11/2012 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote
Exactly! And in this particular case, the vendor is RedHat, and
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
just
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^
Please stop saying we. *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 08/11/2012 10:29 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^
Please stop saying we. *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 01:12:10, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
That doesn't sound like an inherent systemd
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
It *does* work for me here - KDM doesn't
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 18:02:04, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
allow shutdown/reboot
Hi Marco,
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Aug 10, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement
for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that).
So do the other init systems.
The point is what they
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 01:06]:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
of
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-09 23:15]:
And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
value. Linux is not about choice.
Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Dear Guys,
Thanks a lot for the input from Marco d'Itri, Holger Levsen and Thomas
Goirand, as well as Aron Xu off list.
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2012-08-10 10:12]:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the
On Aug 10, Philip Hands p...@hands.com wrote:
Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
interest is in what Debian developers will do.
So,
On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
c library: glibc, eglibc, dietlibc
They exist, and
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-08-10 11:27]:
On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other alternatives, the
differences are extremely tiny.
How is
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it is not.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hello,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:11:12 +0200
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it is not.
No, it is.
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dear Guys,
Thanks a lot for the input from Marco d'Itri, Holger Levsen and Thomas
Goirand, as well as Aron Xu off list.
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:21:08PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:11:12 +0200
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it is not.
No, it is.
No, it
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:03:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 10/08/2012 08:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:16:17AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Wasn't the idea of porting to non-Linux rejected by upstart's upstream?
Porting upstart to non-Linux kernels has never
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
There are two main issues with trying to support multiple init systems.
The first one is the time needed to do it. The second and more important
one is being limited by the features of the less capable implementation,
which would
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 00:50 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
écrit :
What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
work.
Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
[...]
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent operating
system that meets our users needs.
Developers
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent
operating system that meets our users needs.
Developers need the freedom to *make* autonomous technical choices as
part of the process
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 00:53 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin a écrit :
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow
users to replace the system C
Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org writes:
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are choices that we don't support because the process of
supporting that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and
the final goal is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For
example, we
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:53:45AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Declaring one area -- one chosen tool is declaring the monopoly in the
area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to vendor lock-in,
stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
that occasionally.
Exactly!
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
