> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:37:47 +0100
> From: "Armin K." <[email protected]>
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] sysvinit programs
>
> On 12/13/2013 12:59 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:20:33 +0100
> >> From: "Armin K." <[email protected]>
> >> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] sysvinit programs
> >>
> >> On 12/13/2013 12:03 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> >>>> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:50:45 -0800
> >>>> From: Nathan Coulson <[email protected]>
> >>>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] sysvinit programs
> >>>>
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> A thought I was having about systemd vs sysvinit. If the books are
> >>>> being developed in parallel, we should probably try to use the same
> >>>> programs in each. ex:/ if we use pidof in procps-ng we should also
> >>>> use the pidof from procps in systemd. (The above is using the pidof
> >>>> from procps, but seemed like a good example to use).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - and so the (again, entirely predictable) crowbar-ing begins ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Systemd folks are not interested in bidirectional influence: it's their
> >>> way or the highway (as they see it, anyhow; it's a bit risible). _When_
> >>> (not 'if') sysd folks make yet another deliberate contrived change such
> >>> that 'the sysd way' now uses program 'y' and deprecates - and
> >>> deliberately
> >>> "now cannot use" - the related and formerly-used program 'x'; while
> >>> program 'x' and not 'y' has been in use in b/lfs; then you're saying that
> >>> b/lfs should switch over to program 'y'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you seriously suggesting that b/lfs lets itself be led and pushed
> >>> around by the nose, by sysd folks, like that? Nice try, but you won't
> >>> fool everyone: not everyone will follow you into the darkness.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't really care about your stance about systemd or Lennart or
> >> anything else related to both of them, [...]
- yet you've thus far posted two long-ish emails on the topic. It's a bit
like you going around and saying to everyone, that you're being silent today.
"At best a halfwit", they could be forgiven for thinking.
If you really don't care, then _really don't care_. You keep contradicting
yourself - "I'm gone forever! ... I'm back!" &usw.
> >> [...] but I'll say that you are mostly
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> In this case, systemd had nothing to do with it. [...]
> >
> >
> > Nobody's saying that it did. The post was addressing Nathan's suggestion.
> > You're opting for the 'straw man' approach - very transparent.
> >
> >
>
> What?
>
> "Are you seriously suggesting that b/lfs lets itself be led and pushed
> around by the nose, by sysd folks,"
>
> So how was my "In this case, systemd had nothing to do with it." wrong
> think to reply with?
>
The email concerning Nathan's suggestion, was addressing the wider picture
than that particular instance. If you do not understand - or pretend to
not understand - such a simple thing, then that's not my problem.
> >> [...] It's just that most
> >> major distributions have been moved away from sysvinit and it's major
> >> distributions, not systemd developers, who are suggesting/doing this.
> >>
> >> Fedora/Debian/SuSE developers maintain procps-ng and were happy to
> >> accept a program that fits in that package because it was *unmaintained*
> >> by sysvinit people (again, nobody from upstream seems to care about
> >> sysvinit because most major players have switched to systemd) but was
> >> still handy tool to someone. Same goes for sysvinit utils moved to
> >> util-linux package (sulogin, last, lastb and mesg).
> >>
> >> You can find out that it's distro developers and their users who want to
> >> use latest and greatest software, not some unmaintained stuff just
> >> because someone hates systemd. Again, if something still works and *you*
> >> think it works great, doesn't really mean everyone else agrees. Same
> >> goes other way arround.
> >>
> >
> >
> > - yadda yadda yadda. Your point is? You're just making statements that are
> > not related to the reply to Nathan's suggestion. It would be nice if you
> > even got the wrong end of the right stick.
> >
> >
>
> Nathan did say that we should keep same versions of the programs in both
> branches, but it was *you* who said that (again "Are you seriously
> suggesting that b/lfs lets itself be led and pushed around by the nose,
> by sysd folks,") we are forced to do this because systemd folks are
> somehow resposible for *us* trying to use whatever *they* (systemd
> folks) wanted, not because mentioned packages upstream maintainers
> decided that they want to ship that and maintain it in their packages.
>
- see above. Again, your levels and modes of interpretations are of course
your prerogative, but also your responsibility. Nobody need be drawn into
your confused argumentations.
> >> Systemd is waaay more than just a init system, [...]
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's the source of too many problems, now and in the future.
> >
> >
>
> Indeed. Most Linux distributions are using it just to create unusable
> systems and lose its users. They use it just because they were forced to
> use it, to create more bugs and problems than they already have.
- childish, ineffective talk, even with the tag.
> </sarcasm>
>
> Really...
>
> >> [...] please try to remember that.
> >
> >
> > Heh, attempted condescension.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> <evil mode=on>In near future, systemd will hold an interface to kdbus, a
> >> replacement for current dbus and you will *need* to *use* systemd (not
> >
> >
> > You just don't get it, do you: such vision ...
> >
> >
>
> In this case, I don't get what were you trying to say. But it is true,
> you can google for kdbus and see that its userspace components are
> shipped with systemd.
>
> >> just pull its sources from tree) to actually use kdbus. I can't wait for
> >> that to happen just because people are still [...]
> >
> >
> > - so revenge is one of your motives ...
> >
> >
>
> Not mine, I don't even see how this qualifies as "revenge", but it's
> something I'll live for just to shut the people like you up (or let them
> complain even more because they were, doh, forced to use something you
> are free to avoid in LFS world).
>
- sounds like you're ranting now.
> >> [...] hating systemd (they have
> >> every right to do so) because of principle and thoughts of "being
> >> forced" to do something that everyone else seems to welcome.</evil>
> >
> >
> > - simple false statement.
> >
> >
>
> So it's false that *you* don't like systemd? It's false that major
> distributions accepts systemd because they're being forced? It's just
> because they see it as a solution, not as a problem.
>
- now you're just jumbling words and phrases together.
> >>
> >> No offense.
> >
> >
> > - yeah, you're ok. ("Like being 'savaged' by a dead sheep".)
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
> >
> >
> > - yeah but you're still not giving any info to folks, that don't already
> > know, what your surname actually _is_. Instead, to folks looking at your
> > messages 'cold', it can look like your sig is somehow trying to lure them
> > into some inane infantile riddle ('my first is in piddle, but is not in
> > riddle, ...'). Do you want to inform people what your surname _is_? If so,
> > state it clearly.
> >
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > akhiezer
> >
>
> The trick between this one is that I don't *want* to tell what my real
> last name is. Instead people keep *thinking* that my last name *is*
> Krejzi, which it really isn't. If you didn't notice, my email address is
> krejzi@...., so people kept mistakenly using that one as my last name
> (which in coinsidence is beginning with K). It isn't really of your
> concern what my last name is, it's my decision not to tell it.
>
- more sense out of a ball of string.
>
> --
> Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
> --
rgds,
akhiezer
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
