On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if
- Can anyone think of a case where pts should NOT be mounted. You
don't want someone having to edit a script.
- Will this break some scripts that might rely on grepping fstab? (For
example, this could make a port from other Linux distros harder)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Jan de Groot [EMAIL
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Jan de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/
Hi,
graphviz-2.18 is a dependency of anjuta and currently it's stuck in testing.
Looking at its repo information it appears to be maintainerless. Could
someone please progress it out of testing.
Thanks.
Regards,
Neil Darlow
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with putting that in
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:12 +0200, RedShift wrote:
I'm sick and tired of complaining about issues like these, that
shouldn't be discussed in the first place. Do you think I like
complaining? Since when do we assume the user is stupid? All that's
been accomplished here is
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
without these filesystems mounted:
- SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
- None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
It doesn't
RedShift wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
What's wrong with
Would it not be possible to do something like moving all the virtual FS stuff
to a specific file (say fstab.virtual or whatever you want) imported from fstab
(thus easy to locate) ?
To me, it would make it easy to edit while keeping the content of fstab simple,
and nothing would be
On Monday 07 April 2008 11:28:42 Jan de Groot wrote:
I think these things shouldn't be discussed in public anymore.
Exactly the wrong way. Face the critics or dig a hole and wait for it to be
over.
On Monday 07 April 2008 11:39:32 Thomas Bächler wrote:
You guys just don't get it. This is
måndag 07 april 2008 skrev Jan de Groot:
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken
without these filesystems mounted:
- SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted
- None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
In a
Nicely put and seconded Geoff.
Geoff wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:28:42 +0200
Jan de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I think these things shouldn't be discussed in public
anymore.
Whatever may be the outcome of this particular debate, I do
respectfully suggest that it would be
RedShift schrieb:
You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
YOUR principle.
Yes, and guess where I got them from. Arch, 3 years ago.
I doubt that narrow-mindedness is a principle that you got from Arch.
It is not mandatory for basic system operation. With basic system
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to
be Arch's principles, insulting developers and being an ass on the way.
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:58:22 +0200
RedShift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bächler wrote:
[snip]
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring
it up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo'
is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo'
interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
Then I look at the user under the assumption that he knows
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:36:29 -0400
Loui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Who wants to
see Arch Linux become LFS+pacman? Nobody I think.
Not to start an argument with you Loui (because I *do* see
what you mean), but in all honesty the answer to your
question is me. I went from LFS to Slackware
btw. something positive:
anyone following the xen mailing list?
half of the problems are becouse somone fucked something really badly
downstream. like an automatic kernel install script that overwrites your grub
config, becouse it is oh so much smarter then a human. wuuush production
server
I believe the missing question is: what is the rationale beyond this
decision of putting the /dev/pts out of fstab? Besides the aforementioned
robustness (which at some point I tend to agree), what else would be the
technically benefits? If for nothing else than stopping the user to shoot
his
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:15 -0300, Rodrigo Coacci wrote:
I believe the missing question is: what is the rationale beyond this
decision of putting the /dev/pts out of fstab? Besides the
aforementioned robustness (which at some point I tend to agree), what
else would be the technically benefits?
[many comments skipped]
Could we please finally STOP insulting devs?
There are _more civilized_ ways for discussion.
--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:41:53 +0200
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bächler wrote:
[snip]
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I
am thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to
Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo'
is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo'
interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
I just assume as few
On 4/7/08, Alessio Bolognino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas, if you are afraid that users could remove that line from fstab,
why
don't you just put a # Warning, do not remove these lines unless you
really
know what you are doing or something like that? I think this will reduce
complexity
Alessio Bolognino wrote:
Thomas, if you are afraid that users could remove that line from fstab, why
don't you just put a # Warning, do not remove these lines unless you really
know what you are doing or something like that? I think this will reduce
complexity of rc.sysinit (not very much, I
On Monday 07 April 2008 17:45:29 Thomas Bächler wrote:
I quote:
'Simple' is defined from a technical standpoint, not a usability
standpoint. It is better to be technically elegant with a higher
learning curve, than to be easy to use, and technically crap.
What you don't get is that if you
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15
from rc.sysinit.
Can I get opinions on these?
Thomas,
Having read your last
RedShift schrieb:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues:
1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit.
2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15
from rc.sysinit.
Can I get opinions on these?
Thomas,
Attila a écrit :
On Montag, 7. April 2008 12:00 Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
I think that is a good reason why the mount commands should be in /etc/fstab
and not in some obscure init script.
I suggest the same because the fstab is the best point to collect the
necessary informations about what
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:47:26 RedShift wrote:
The thread resulted in savagery - nowhere
near civilized. I apologize for that. I will try and keep my e-mails more
professional.
Right. pretty unprofessional. awkward.
Sorry from me too. That doesn't change my opinion but i agree that we won't
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:52:21PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
RedShift schrieb:
You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
YOUR principle.
Yes, and guess where I got them from. Arch, 3 years ago.
There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I am
I know I am perhaps a bit late to this thread and perhaps don't belong
here but I'd like to weigh in.
Here's some history if anyone cares: I've been an Arch user since 0.6
and spent 6-8 months in 2004/2005 being probably the most active
person in #archlinux when I helped more new users than I can
On Monday 07 April 2008, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
[many comments skipped]
Could we please finally STOP insulting devs?
There are _more civilized_ ways for discussion.
Agreed - this recent phenomena is absolutely absurd and completely painful to
read.
-Snark
I put my words here but it's just my opinion:
1. Arch's devs are great and cute.
2. I am against to hardcoded-things.
3. If possible, I prefer what has been hardcoded in file system mounting
should put int one file: fstab.
4. Should I open a bug tracker for the discussion.
Thomas Bächler wrote:
The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely
useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface).
However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational
reasons not to hardcode devpts?
I'm 100% with Thomas for it
36 matches
Mail list logo
