On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:28:56 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 02/20/2014 09:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
Thanks for your answer and apologies for the delay in responding but my
$dayjob's been keeping me very busy.
What features does sysvinit+openrc have that sysvinit+sysv-rc+insserv
doesn't have?
On 02/28/2014 01:10 AM, Tom H wrote:
Just to name a few:
- getting rid of the ugly LSB headers
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Short-Description and
Description LSB fields are useless, but I don't find Debian's LSB
headers and Gentoo's squiggle-delimited stanzas any more beautiful
On 21 Feb 2014, at 12:22, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I agree and understand that this was the way to go back in the old
days, but we shouldn't be using that on current setups.
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
--
To
On Feb 23, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
Who is? Seriously, would you mind stepping forward?
On 02/23/2014 12:32 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
I agree and understand that this was the way to go back in the old
days, but we shouldn't be using that on current setups.
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
No, and I don't see any compelling reason why I should. With
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:47:44PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
On 02/23/2014 12:32 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
No, and I don't see any compelling reason why I should.
On 02/23/2014 07:32 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On 21 Feb 2014, at 12:22, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I agree and understand that this was the way to go back in the old
days, but we shouldn't be using that on current setups.
But you aren't planning on
On 02/23/2014 07:36 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 23, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
Who is? Seriously, would you mind stepping forward?
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:43:14PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Since you aren't a user nor are going to be a user of openrc, I don't
see why you feel the need to critique it, especially on debian-devel
where the majority of subscribers are just not interested.
Well. OpenRC was up for
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 08:50:13PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd-sysv+upstart+openrc+sysv-rcshow_installed=onwant_legend=onwant_ticks=onfrom_date=2014-01-01to_date=hlght_date=date_fmt=%25Y-%25mbeenhere=1
sysv-rc wins...
With useless
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 08:45:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 02/23/2014 07:32 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On 21 Feb 2014, at 12:22, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I agree and understand that this was the way to go back in the old
days, but we
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
Kevin, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind this. Again,
the problem the init system has to solve here is being able to track a
process with a 100% accuracy, so whatever automated mechanisms you have
configured when
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:53:51 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Kevin, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind this. Again,
the problem the init system has to solve here is being able to track a
process with a 100% accuracy, so whatever automated mechanisms you have
configured
previously on this list Marco d'Itri contributed:
But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
Who is? Seriously, would you mind stepping forward?
If it was available I would use it but wouldn't be switching cgroups
on or would be switching them off even if I hadn't bothered
Perhaps before this thread spirals out of control I should re-iterate
that what I said was cgroups doesn't pass the worth-it barrier for me
and not that they have NO value.
I also mentioned pgroups for those that do want this functionality but
also want portability and not bugs in daemons on one
for discussion as the default init, wasn't it?
Yes, *was*. Now, move on, we're not discussing this anymore. If you
didn't notice the subject of this thread, it is:
default init on non-Linux platforms
On 02/23/2014 09:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I'm out, the weather is too nice :).
Exactly: you
On 02/21/2014 03:37 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
mkdir -p /run/openrc
touch /run/openrc/softlevel
and then it still doesn't work as expected:
root@howl:/etc/init.d# /etc/init.d/rsyslog start
* WARNING: rsyslog is already starting
root@howl:/etc/init.d# /etc/init.d/rsyslog stop
* ERROR:
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
Regex works just fine for me.
One sample usecase where they dont't: the system is wedged / overcommitted
and I need to terminate some services; guess I'll start another ten processes
to do that. Yeah, right.
I'll be nice to everybody else here and not enumerate any others.
previously on this list Kevin Chadwick contributed:
Perhaps before this thread spirals out of control I should
should also mention this has been discussed on this very list already,
though before I was enrolled and the following response went
unreplied to.
On the other hand and I doubt of
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
One sample usecase where they dont't: the system is wedged / overcommitted
and I need to terminate some services; guess I'll start another ten processes
to do that. Yeah, right.
I'll be nice to everybody else here and not enumerate any
On Feb 23, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Marco and yourself are *a way* off topic. Please at least have the
decency to rename the subject of the tread to systemd fanboys flamewar
yet-again bashing OpenRC just for fun or something similar (but
preferably: don't just do that in this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/23/2014 03:29 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 23, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Marco and yourself are *a way* off topic. Please at least have the
decency to rename the subject of the tread to systemd fanboys
flamewar yet-again
Hey Adrian,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
That's correct. However, the problem with kFreeBSD is that I - as a
package maintainer - have to invest extra time to make sure my
packages don't FTBFS on these architectures as otherwise my packages
wouldn't be
Dear Kevin,
Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
The benefit that Linux and even firefox etc. has gained from OpenBSD's
practically paranoid bug fixing as well as finding the bugs for all the
platforms it's userland still runs on especially in compiler tools
should be realised and
On 02/24/2014 04:29 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 23, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Marco and yourself are *a way* off topic. Please at least have the
decency to rename the subject of the tread to systemd fanboys flamewar
yet-again bashing OpenRC just for fun or something similar
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Kevin, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind this. Again,
the problem the init system has to solve here is being able to track a
process with a 100% accuracy, so whatever automated mechanisms you have
configured when certain situations occur, they
On 20/02/14 19:37, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I have split openrc into openrc and openrc-sysv moving the conflicting
parts to openrc-sysv on my system, and it install just fine
If sysv-rc's invoke-rc.d and update-rc.d should be treated as generic
glue shared by multiple inits (which they probably
On 02/21/2014 04:20 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
OpenRC needs a proper directory structure in /run/openrc to track the
status of services. It is handled by init.sh and friends, you may need
to hack that.
So, OpenRC actually also relies on files - like System V Init - to
track the state of a
Dear Adrian,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
So, OpenRC actually also relies on files - like System V Init - to
track the state of a service? Isn't that approach somewhat unreliable
and hacky?
I bet you are going to tell me the only reliable and non-hacky way
On 02/21/2014 01:00 PM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, OpenRC actually also relies on files - like System V Init - to
track the state of a service? Isn't that approach somewhat unreliable
and hacky?
I bet you are going to tell me the only reliable and non-hacky way to
track the state of a
Dear Adrian,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de writes:
On 02/21/2014 01:00 PM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, OpenRC actually also relies on files - like System V Init - to
track the state of a service? Isn't that approach somewhat unreliable
and hacky?
I bet you are
previously on this list hero...@gentoo.org contributed:
And grepping through the output of ps or similar is not what
I would consider reliable and robust either.
Nod. grepping `ps` is what we should avoid at all cost.
All cost? While I like OpenRC and thanks to Gentoo for it and like
On 02/21/2014 11:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
previously on this list hero...@gentoo.org contributed:
And grepping through the output of ps or similar is not what
I would consider reliable and robust either.
Nod. grepping `ps` is what we should avoid at all cost.
All cost? While I like
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:30:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That package does currently depend on
perl, though, which isn't appropriate for an essential package.
... The dependency is because
deb-systemd-helper uses a bunch of modules that are not currently in
perl-core (File::Path,
Hi,
On 02/20/2014 09:57, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:30:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That package does currently depend on
perl, though, which isn't appropriate for an essential package.
... The dependency is because
deb-systemd-helper uses a bunch of modules that are not
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:52:12 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 02/20/2014 09:57, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:30:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
... The dependency is because
deb-systemd-helper uses a bunch of modules that are not currently in
perl-core (File::Path,
On 02/20/2014 02:10 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Do people use all those runlevels?
As much as I know, there's only 4 in use (using names of OpenRC here,
since OpenRC has named runlevels):
- shutdown (runlevel 0)
- recovery (runlevel 1)
- reboot (runlevel 6)
- default (often, everything else, but
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:19:30 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
It's probably better to just contribute your changes to the sysv-rc
version and so make that one able to manage openrc in addition to the
others it already knows how to. No point in forking
On 02/20/2014 09:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
What features does sysvinit+openrc have that sysvinit+sysv-rc+insserv
doesn't have?
Just to name a few:
- getting rid of the ugly LSB headers
- cgroup supports to kill processes
- rc_hotplug (a hotplugged service is one started by a dynamic dev
manager when
Le jeudi, 20 février 2014, 22.28:56 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 02/20/2014 09:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
What features does sysvinit+openrc have that
sysvinit+sysv-rc+insserv doesn't have?
Just to name a few:
- getting rid of the ugly LSB headers
They might be ugly, but they encode the
On 02/20/2014 15:28, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 02/20/2014 09:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
What features does sysvinit+openrc have that sysvinit+sysv-rc+insserv
doesn't have?
Just to name a few:
- getting rid of the ugly LSB headers
- cgroup supports to kill processes
I'm curious: does OpenRC allow
On 02/20/2014 10:45 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le jeudi, 20 février 2014, 22.28:56 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 02/20/2014 09:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
What features does sysvinit+openrc have that
sysvinit+sysv-rc+insserv doesn't have?
Just to name a few:
- getting rid of the ugly LSB headers
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
On 02/20/2014 09:57, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:30:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That package does currently depend on
perl, though, which isn't appropriate for an essential package.
... The dependency is because
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
On 02/20/2014 15:28, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, we have an ALIVE UPSTREAM TEAM, and an evolving project, which is
IMO important (is there anyone still working on sysv-rc apart from a
few Debian maintainers? my understanding is: we're alone now...).
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014, at 17:39, Thomas Goirand wrote:
There's of course dependencies in OpenRC. You have the choice: either
you keep the LSB headers, either you write it the OpenRC way (IMO,
prefered...). In OpenRC, you just use functions of the openrc-run
interpreter. For example:
Well, this
Hey Ondřej,
Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org writes:
I have split openrc into openrc and openrc-sysv moving the conflicting
parts to openrc-sysv on my system, and it install just fine, but running
script with /sbin/openrc-run needs:
mkdir -p /run/openrc
touch /run/openrc/softlevel
and then it
Hi,
Thomas Goirand:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
It's been years that I've been asking that we have the release name a
way sooner. Ideally, one release earlier, so that we can prepare for the
new name soon enough (and not fix things during the freeze). But the
release team doesn't seem
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
Neil
[0] Note: may be a lie.
Umm, Debian 9.0?
--
If you're not careful, the
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
Neil
[0] Note:
On 19 February 2014 11:22, Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release
Am 18.02.2014 19:18, schrieb Didier 'OdyX' Raboud:
Le mercredi, 19 février 2014, 00.56:07 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 02/18/2014 11:10 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
Am 19.02.2014 00:52, schrieb Russ Allbery:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
They *HAVE* to be provided by the active init system. They are an
impedance matching layer (aka stable API) used by maintainer scripts to
interface with the active init system.
If you look at
On 02/19/2014 10:44 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
I'd like to add that switching to openrc breaks the SysV/LSB support in
systemd. Openrc doesn't use the /etc/rc?.d/ directories to create the
symlinks which signal if a service is active for a given runlevel.
(those symlinks are created in
Dimitri,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 12:57, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 11:22, Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
Dimitri,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 12:57, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 11:22, Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at
On 19/02/14 15:09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
First, yes, OpenRC uses /etc/runlevel, with the folders below that being
the *names* of the runlevel (which IMO is a way more user friendly than
just numbers). FYI, we have: shutdown=0, recovery=1, reboot=6, and
everything-else=default. So we do have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/19/2014 10:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
Dimitri,
are you aware that media are already quoting your blogpost as
official announcement of next Debian codename?
Nah,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 16:57, The Wanderer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/19/2014 10:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
Dimitri,
are you aware that media are already quoting your blogpost
On 19 February 2014 15:57, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/19/2014 10:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
Dimitri,
are you aware that media are already quoting your
On 19 February 2014 16:05, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 16:57, The Wanderer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/19/2014 10:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
Dimitri,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 17:09, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 16:05, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 16:57, The Wanderer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/19/2014 10:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19
On 02/19/2014 10:47 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 19.02.2014 00:52, schrieb Russ Allbery:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
They *HAVE* to be provided by the active init system. They are an
impedance matching layer (aka stable API) used by maintainer scripts to
interface
On 02/19/2014 11:53 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
I suspect the right thing would be to share one implementation of
update-rc.d(8), invoke-rc.d(8) and possibly service(8) between all
supported init implementations, provided by either src:sysvinit or
src:init-system-helpers.
Surprisingly, service
Hi,
The Wanderer:
Nah, wasn't aware =) I blame Neil, I thought he still was a release
manager ;-) Any reason, not to make it official? =)
Well, back in 2002 there was a probably-joking sort-of decision that
zurg should be the codename of the release where the Hurd and *BSD
ports were
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:45:12PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
are you aware that media are already quoting your blogpost as official
announcement of next Debian codename?
Nah, wasn't aware =) I blame Neil, I thought he
previously on this list Thomas Goirand contributed:
So, systemd is still using /etc/rc?.d. Could you tell exactly what it
uses out of /etc/rc?.d, and what for? Does it only needs to see them as
S??script-name in runlevel 2 or 4 (or whatever it uses...)?
If systemd needs links in /etc/rcX.d,
]] Thomas Goirand
How come? I just took what was in the sysinit package! Or probably, what
you are talking about is new features, which I should merge it back into
the OpenRC version?
It's probably better to just contribute your changes to the sysv-rc
version and so make that one able to
Hi Tollef,
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
It's probably better to just contribute your changes to the sysv-rc
version and so make that one able to manage openrc in addition to the
others it already knows how to. No point in forking it.
Forking was a decision made by me in the early
hero...@gentoo.org writes:
Forking was a decision made by me in the early phase of packaging
OpenRC. At that time I referred to the way file-rc handled update-rc.d
as in
sysvinit: /usr/share/sysvinit/update-rc.d
A central package providing update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d is nice. Though
Hi,
I don't really want to open another can of worms, but what's the opinion
of non-Linux ports maintainers on default init?
Or maybe I should turn it another way:
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Depends: systemd | openrc
if I want to get rid of non-declarative
On 02/18/2014 10:15 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
I don't really want to open another can of worms, but what's the opinion
of non-Linux ports maintainers on default init?
Or maybe I should turn it another way:
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Depends:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there anyone which would like to
keep the old
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 02/18/2014 10:15 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
[...]
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Depends: systemd | openrc
if I want to get rid of non-declarative init scripts in my daemon
packages?
[...]
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:15:24PM +0100, Ondrej Surý wrote:
Hi,
I don't really want to open another can of worms, but what's the opinion
of non-Linux ports maintainers on default init?
Or maybe I should turn it another way:
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Hello,
On 18 February 2014 16:08, Guus Sliepen g...@debian.org wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there anyone which would like to
keep the old
Le mardi, 18 février 2014, 22.55:32 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there anyone which would like to
keep the old featureless
On 18/02/14 14:15, Ondřej Surý wrote:
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Depends: systemd | openrc
if I want to get rid of non-declarative init scripts in my daemon
packages?
I don't think that's going to be a good migration path from wheezy to
jessie. For
On 02/18/2014 11:08 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 02/18/2014 10:15 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
[...]
If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can I do:
Depends: systemd | openrc
if I want to get rid of non-declarative
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:58:20PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
You are IMO missing the point. I'm not proposing to drop support for
init scripts, but remove sysv-rc. That's very different! We could
continue to have init scripts but have OpenRC to use them.
Although I'm still not sure what
Hi!
Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org writes:
I don't really want to open another can of worms, but what's the opinion
of non-Linux ports maintainers on default init?
Hm so why was none of the ports list Cc-ed on this mail? There is
active discussion [0] between hurd and bsd people were we want to
On 02/18/2014 11:38 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 18 février 2014, 22.55:32 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 05:26:05PM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote:
Hm so why was none of the ports list Cc-ed on this mail? There is
active discussion [0] between hurd and bsd people were we want to go
now.
Likewise perhaps pkg-sysvinit-devel should be copied into all such
discussions (copied
On 02/18/2014 11:10 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there
On 02/18/2014 11:38 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 18 février 2014, 22.55:32 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Actually, thinking about it a 2nd time, I think there would be a major
drawback in delaying to Jessie +1. If we decide that sysv-rc goes away,
then starting at the Jessie release, we don't have to care anymore about
LSB header scripts. Meaning that we
Le mercredi, 19 février 2014, 01.11:21 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Actually, thinking about it a 2nd time, I think there would be a major
drawback in delaying to Jessie +1. If we decide that sysv-rc goes
away, then starting at the Jessie release, we don't have to care
anymore about LSB header
Le mercredi, 19 février 2014, 00.56:07 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 02/18/2014 11:10 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
Neil
[0] Note: may be a lie.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
]] Thomas Goirand
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
No, update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d still need to be provided by something.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky
Hello,
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:59:13 +0100
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional
package?
No, update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d still need to be provided by
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:11:21AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Actually, thinking about it a 2nd time, I think there would be a major
drawback in delaying to Jessie +1. If we decide that sysv-rc goes away,
then starting at the Jessie release, we don't have to care anymore about
LSB header
On 02/18/2014 03:31 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
finally one of the 'bad' guys!
[*] as a release, sid don't apply
Neil
[0] Note: may be a lie.
--
1AE0 322E
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace
sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package?
No, update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d still need to be provided by something.
They *HAVE* to be provided by the
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
They *HAVE* to be provided by the active init system. They are an
impedance matching layer (aka stable API) used by maintainer scripts to
interface with the active init system.
If you look at the existing implementation, you'll find that
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
They *HAVE* to be provided by the active init system. They are an
impedance matching layer (aka stable API) used by maintainer scripts to
interface with the active init system.
If you look at
Apparently sysvinit scripts must be retained anyway for a smooth
migration to jessie; also for easy backporting of jessie packages to
wheezy, and maybe other reasons. Non-Linux ports are likely to use
those SysV init scripts, though we might invoke them from something
other than sysvinit.
I
Hi,
I'm replying to everyone in a single mail, I hope that's fine. I'm
therefore a bit repeating myself, sorry for that.
On 02/19/2014 02:18 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 19 février 2014, 00.56:07 Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 02/18/2014 11:10 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue,
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 02/19/2014 08:05 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are some advantages to providing only one version with knowledge
of all of the init systems given that we're supporting init system
switching, and
98 matches
Mail list logo
