Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Madhur Ahuja]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Madhur Ahuja  wrote:
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
>
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>
> Thanks,
> Madhur
>

Ok, Some people have suggested that I am trolling just because I have
not replied in *12* hours to any ideas.

Guys, this is not the case. I am quite new to Open source and
community driven projects and by the replies I am getting the fair
idea that its the initiative which somebody like me will have to take
or arch will not switch to Upstart because of its philosophy.

I get that and will keep in mind in my further discussions on this
mailing lists.

Thanks,
Madhur

[arch-general] is udev-164 a safe solution at the moment

[Attila]

Hi,

still again after every 20 or 30 new boot udev-165 hangs both pc's with 
archlinux. So my question is that if i step back to udev-164 will there be 
problems with the initscripts or any other plans what you the devs have in the 
near future? If yes than i can (or have to) live with this because it is very 
seldom and therefore very hard to find out what is the problem.

See you, Attila

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Attila]

At Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2011 22:45 Ionuț Bîru wrote:

> We should really stop this. The OP doesn't have any interest to 
> participate to the discussion. In 12 hours he didn't replied to any of 
> your ideas, clearly he is a troll.

Only for the stats: If he, the OP, has asked before work (or a business date) 
to 
have the answer(s) if he is back than 12h be not very long.-)

See you, Attila

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Kaiting Chen]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Juan R. de Silva  wrote:

> I'd like to install GNOME for my freshly installed base system following
> instructions provided on this page 'https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/
> GNOME#Base '. As you
> can see it reads:
>
> "Install the base GNOME desktop"
>
> # pacman -S gnome
>
> And then: "This is a meta-package; which is a group of packages. An
> option will be given to install all or some of the packages in this
> group."
>
> When I run the command above, the list of all files in group is displayed
> and the only option given to me is to answer Y/N to install the entire
> list of packages, that I would like to avoid.
>
> I've read through man pacman carefully a couple of times and I've not
> found any option allowing to filter out undesirable file/s while
> installing a group. Tried to search arch wiki without any success.
>
> Could anybody provide me with a hint here, please?
>

You can just go ahead and do this, `pacman -Sg gnome | awk '{ print $2 }' >
tempfile`, then edit that tempfile and delete the packages that you don't
want, then do `pacman -S $(cat tempfile)`. --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Juan R. de Silva]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:06:27 +, Juan R. de Silva wrote:

> I'd like to install GNOME for my freshly installed base system following
> instructions provided on this page
> 'https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ GNOME#Base'. As you can see it
> reads:
> 
> "Install the base GNOME desktop"
> 
> # pacman -S gnome
> 
> And then: "This is a meta-package; which is a group of packages. An
> option will be given to install all or some of the packages in this
> group."
> 
> When I run the command above, the list of all files in group is
> displayed and the only option given to me is to answer Y/N to install
> the entire list of packages, that I would like to avoid.
> 
> I've read through man pacman carefully a couple of times and I've not
> found any option allowing to filter out undesirable file/s while
> installing a group. Tried to search arch wiki without any success.
> 
> Could anybody provide me with a hint here, please?

The best of all suggestions seemed to me to pipe the list of group files 
into a file, edit it and then to feed the file into pacman. However when 
I saw the list of 155 packages in in the file, I just gave up and 
installed the whole bloat.

At the end all I wanted was to skip 5 packages from the group. I found 
the task of editing a huge list manually ridiculously tedious and decided 
that it would be much easier remove them one by one after GNOME is place.

It's a pity  --ignore option in pacman is busted, it's seems to be quite 
important.

Thank you folks for you support.

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Juan R. de Silva]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:57:40 -0700, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 20:06, Juan R. de Silva
>  wrote:
>> I'd like to install GNOME for my freshly installed base system
>> following instructions provided on this page
>> 'https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ GNOME#Base'. As you can see it
>> reads:
>>
>> "Install the base GNOME desktop"
>>
>> # pacman -S gnome
>>
>> And then: "This is a meta-package; which is a group of packages. An
>> option will be given to install all or some of the packages in this
>> group."
>>
>> When I run the command above, the list of all files in group is
>> displayed and the only option given to me is to answer Y/N to install
>> the entire list of packages, that I would like to avoid.
>>
>> I've read through man pacman carefully a couple of times and I've not
>> found any option allowing to filter out undesirable file/s while
>> installing a group. Tried to search arch wiki without any success.
>>
>> Could anybody provide me with a hint here, please?
> 
> While I can't confirm this, my Arch box currently being dead, I believe
> you can just hit 'N' and it will walk you through the list one package
> at a time.
> 
> ~celti

It did not do it for me.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Cody Maloney
 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
>>
>> ... so, anyone out there to support or refute this observation (with actual
>> experience ...)
>
> Better is a matter of opinion. From what I've gathered about systemd
> it makes a lot of things a lot better/simpler/cleaner, and seems to be
> fairly sensibly put together.

don't forget things that were previously not possible! like verifiable
boot, reliable kill/term/reload (WITHOUT cooperation from the child
process), and resource limiting for example... all of which are rather
important for servers :-)

> Systemd definitely gets a lot right, and I do use
> it some on my desktops which already have a strong dependency on
> D-Bus.

arch desktops?  could you elaborate more here; how is the experience?

> I could see possibly trying to build a non-bash/sysv init
> system for Arch to provide much of what systemd provides

i don't understand what you mean here... reinvent an application that
currently gaining much traction/backing?  why?

> but I don't
> like bringing in D-Bus as a core system dependency to do so. I like
> KISS, and D-Bus (at least in its current state), just doesn't fit into
> my interpretation of KISS on any machine.

i just did a quick check on dbus-core.  minus all the man pages,
headers, etc. you are left with a single dynamic library, and 5
binaries.  these combined weigh in at a whopping half a MB (yes,
that's 0.5MB :-).

what's not kiss about that?

i guess i think dbus is pretty awesome.  quite frankly, i love linux
but i'm tired of editing 1000s of different kinds of config files with
different syntax, and disparate methods for doing every little thing.
it's a high speed bus that lets me use language  to speak
to many different running applications, independent of the
application's language, reliably and effectively.  things like
libvirt/policykit are very important to my personal/professional uses
of linux, at home and company.  i don't see dbus going away anytime
soon, and honestly i hope it becomes integrated into everything and
becomes integral to the linux experience, because from a development
point of view it adds a lot of flexibility to grow and introspect,
with little if any drawbacks (though i could very well be missing
something).

> D-Bus has directly reduced both the predictability and stability of my 
> machines,
> ...
> for the time being, it has caused me nothing but problems.

how so?  if you mean applications changing their interface, this
really isn't dbus's fault.  could you elaborate more?  i have many
systems and custom scripts that rely on it in one way or another and i
haven't experienced any issues.

thanks for your response; it's well appreciated.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Cody Maloney]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2011 7:13 PM, "Ng Oon-Ee"  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:22 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Laurent Carlier 
> wrote:
>> > > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit :
>> > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?
>> > >>
>> > >> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
>> > >> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
>> > >> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.
>> > >>
>> > >> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
>> > >> arch unit files from AUR?
>> > >>
>> > >> C Anthony
>> > >
>> > > Let me resume:
>> > >
>> > > Currently there is no plan and no date.
>> > >
>> > > ++
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'm not convinced systemd is better than the current initscripts in
>> > its current state. I've seen problems from people using systemd in the
>> > forums and in other sources. You should work on improving systemd on
>> > arch and getting everything documented if you really do like it.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I've been observing the systemd thread, seems really interesting
>> (conceptually and practically). Will have to try it someday, when I've
>> graduated and the cost of an unbootable system becomes less heavy =)
>>
>
> I will likely put time into this when possible, but that's not very soon; I
> have another Arch related project with btrfs that I've delayed too long.  As
> for being better... I think the links provided to Lennart's blog explain
> that fairly well.  200 line bash scripts become 15 line service files.
>
> I was hoping to hear from someone currently using/trying the systemd related
> AUR packages, because some of the posts in the forum are very positive, and
> allude to good Arch specific support/experiences.
>
> ... so, anyone out there to support or refute this observation (with actual
> experience ...)
>
> C Anthony [mobile]
>

Better is a matter of opinion. From what I've gathered about systemd
it makes a lot of things a lot better/simpler/cleaner, and seems to be
fairly sensibly put together. However, I have a number of issues with
D-Bus (and HAL, although that has died already), and like being able
to avoid it on my server machines (Many Window Managers (WM) require
it, such as xfce and gnome, now so I'm stuck with it on my desktops
for the time being). Systemd definitely gets a lot right, and I do use
it some on my desktops which already have a strong dependency on
D-Bus.  I could see possibly trying to build a non-bash/sysv init
system for Arch to provide much of what systemd provides, but I don't
like bringing in D-Bus as a core system dependency to do so. I like
KISS, and D-Bus (at least in its current state), just doesn't fit into
my interpretation of KISS on any machine. I'm for making things
simpler, and don't mind replacing classic software, but D-Bus has
directly reduced both the predictability and stability of my machines,
two of the core things that makes Linux a nice environment for me to
work in. Maybe once applications all figure out how to interact with
each other more cleanly over D-Bus, then things will improve, but for
the time being, it has caused me nothing but problems.

Cody Maloney

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Jan 19, 2011 7:13 PM, "Ng Oon-Ee"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:22 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Laurent Carlier 
wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit :
> > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger 
> > > wrote:
> > >> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?
> > >>
> > >> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
> > >> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
> > >> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.
> > >>
> > >> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
> > >> arch unit files from AUR?
> > >>
> > >> C Anthony
> > >
> > > Let me resume:
> > >
> > > Currently there is no plan and no date.
> > >
> > > ++
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm not convinced systemd is better than the current initscripts in
> > its current state. I've seen problems from people using systemd in the
> > forums and in other sources. You should work on improving systemd on
> > arch and getting everything documented if you really do like it.
>
> +1
>
> I've been observing the systemd thread, seems really interesting
> (conceptually and practically). Will have to try it someday, when I've
> graduated and the cost of an unbootable system becomes less heavy =)
>

I will likely put time into this when possible, but that's not very soon; I
have another Arch related project with btrfs that I've delayed too long.  As
for being better... I think the links provided to Lennart's blog explain
that fairly well.  200 line bash scripts become 15 line service files.

I was hoping to hear from someone currently using/trying the systemd related
AUR packages, because some of the posts in the forum are very positive, and
allude to good Arch specific support/experiences.

... so, anyone out there to support or refute this observation (with actual
experience ...)

C Anthony [mobile]

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ng Oon-Ee]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:22 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Laurent Carlier  wrote:
> > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger 
> > wrote:
> >> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?
> >>
> >> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
> >> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
> >> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.
> >>
> >> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
> >> arch unit files from AUR?
> >>
> >> C Anthony
> >
> > Let me resume:
> >
> > Currently there is no plan and no date.
> >
> > ++
> >
> >
> 
> I'm not convinced systemd is better than the current initscripts in
> its current state. I've seen problems from people using systemd in the
> forums and in other sources. You should work on improving systemd on
> arch and getting everything documented if you really do like it.

+1

I've been observing the systemd thread, seems really interesting
(conceptually and practically). Will have to try it someday, when I've
graduated and the cost of an unbootable system becomes less heavy =)

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Thomas Dziedzic]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Laurent Carlier  wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit :
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger 
> wrote:
>> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?
>>
>> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
>> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
>> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.
>>
>> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
>> arch unit files from AUR?
>>
>> C Anthony
>
> Let me resume:
>
> Currently there is no plan and no date.
>
> ++
>
>

I'm not convinced systemd is better than the current initscripts in
its current state. I've seen problems from people using systemd in the
forums and in other sources. You should work on improving systemd on
arch and getting everything documented if you really do like it.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Laurent Carlier]

Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger  
wrote:
> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?
> 
> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.
> 
> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
> arch unit files from AUR?
> 
> C Anthony

Let me resume:

Currently there is no plan and no date.

++

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Juan R. de Silva]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:46:21 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

> On 19/01/11 20:35, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Juan R. de Silva
>>   wrote:
 Best option RIGHT NOW is to pacman -Sg gnome and then manually pacman
 - -Suy pkgfoo pkgbar pkgyetanother of the ones you want from the
 list.


>>> Boy, what's an opportunity to exercise my typing. I'm working in tty
>>> now.  :-(
>>
>> According to my understanding of pacman's manpage, the option --ignore
>> should be enough to filter out what you don't want. For example
>>
>> # pacman -S gnome --ignore abc,def,hgi,.
>>
>> I believe I've used it like that for a similar situation.
>>
>>
> Except that is a bit broken with the current pacman...  and when I say a
> bit broken, I mean it does not work at all.

Correct. I've tried it hopelessly too.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
>
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?

oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards
to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i
haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time.

any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the
arch unit files from AUR?

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[David C. Rankin]

On 01/19/2011 11:35 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> systemd is my personal favorite; it is a solid concept and the most
> novel and complete solution.  systemd is related to upstart, but works
> in the complete opposite direction.  with systemd, you define where
> you WANT TO BE first, and actions "trickle down" to get you there.

Good to have you here my friend :)

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

[arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

so-and-so has already embraced it (plus it's super awesome/useful :-)

Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ?

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=96316
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-1.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-2.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-4.html

http://netsplit.com/2010/04/30/on-systemd/

Thanks,
:-)

Re: [arch-general] fetchmail/spamassassin error after update

[David C. Rankin]

On 01/19/2011 02:54 PM, Thaddeus Nielsen wrote:
> A quick google search on sa-learn will show you this is a spamassassin
> issue and has nothing to do with fetchmail.
> 
>   T.
>

Thanks T.

I finally found the reference to the upstream bug and patches here:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=100206

However, there seem to be multiple patches and it is unclear what is referenced
by patch3 at the end. I'll play with it and see if I can get it working...

Since it is upstream, I won't file a bug here unless somebody wants me to. Any 
need?

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Ionuț Bîru]

We should really stop this. The OP doesn't have any interest to 
participate to the discussion. In 12 hours he didn't replied to any of 
your ideas, clearly he is a troll.


Let this thread to die...

--
Ionuț

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Yaro Kasear]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 02:25:28 pm Isaac Dupree wrote:
> On 01/19/11 14:03, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> > And comments about Ubuntu and their competence are entirely relevant to
> > this discussion, as Upstart is entirely their creation. Would you rather
> > I talk about people who had nothing to do with its code? The Ubuntu devs
> > are behind Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes
> > to the actual system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider
> > Upstart an improvement.
> 
> Argument ad hominem.

This was not argument ad hominem. I didn't call you names or insult you. Learn 
what it means before using that phrase. 

> We can be precise; it's more obviously rude that
> way.  Scott James Remnant wrote Upstart.

For Ubuntu. As an Ubuntu developer. Why do you think upstart's main page is on 
the Ubuntu web site, and not just Launchpad?

> I can't speak for Ubuntu, but
> I've seen Remnant presenting and he seemed quite competent.  Software is
> hard; Upstart was the first attempt at changing 'init' in decades, so
> there was little experiential knowledge of Linux 'init' development when
> it started in 2006. 

And that leads to my next question: What makes Upstart necessary?

Nothing. Boot speed is a trivial reason to overhaul the way UNIX/Linux boots, 
especially for an init system that is needlessly complex and far less 
accessible than what we already had. If we switch to upstart, simply beign 
able to edit a file like /etc/rc.conf will be gone, and setting up daemons 
"The Arch Way" would become unnecessarily difficult.

The fact that init hasn't been changed in "decades" like you claim is because 
nobody worth their UNIX development skill felt init actually NEEDED a change. 
It still doesn't. Just because you CAN change it doesn't mean you NEED to 
change it. SysV Init is fine for Arch, maybe systemd might be a pleasant 
change, but it's not a necessary change either.

> In fact, in the process of writing Upstart, Remnant
> and his co-workers made Ubuntu boot faster largely by working with Xorg
> and Linux kernel developers.

Boot times are an incredibly trivial reason to upheave the actual system 
process of a system like Arch. Rarely does someone actually need to get to 
their desktop in such a hurry, and it's far less important than the system 
being stable or fast during actual runtime. Upstart moves things in the 
opposite direction of that.

> There are now upstream changes due to the
> risk Ubuntu took with Upstart.  *Arch* therefore now boots faster
> because of Remnant.

First I ever heard of Upstart being important enough for something MUCH bigger 
and MUCH more important changing how they work JUST for the sake of something 
MUCH smaller and MUCH less important to work correctly. I'm going to have to 
see official upstream patches or it didn't happen.

> He's a pretty smart guy who knows what he's doing
> even if some of us disagree with what he's doing; I was at his
> presentation "How We Made Ubuntu Boot Faster"
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/linuxcon2010/remnant

Again, booting faster is a luxury. People talk about it as if its very 
important, but it's trivial compared to a system running and running well, two 
things Upstart's known for not promoting.

> 
> That is equally no reason to switch to Upstart.

There is NO reason to switch to Upstart at all, except that the OP seems to 
think that just because Ubuntu and Fedora did it, we should too, and plenty of 
reasons NOT to switch to Upstart.

> We can be grateful to
> Remnant and choose the best (technically & socially) solution *for Arch*
> *in 2011*.  Of course he's enthusiastic about Upstart but I'm sure he
> wouldn't mind.

Again, Remnant made WHAT contributions to Arch to date? You plan on pulling 
him from his place as an Ubuntu dev where mediocre code is praised to make 
Arch run worse just for the sake of a couple seconds less boot time? Here's an 
idea, how about we just rewrute the initscripts to be more efficient. That'd 
be much less of a trouble.

> (I don't pretend to know which solution this is, though
> it sounds like Arch's current init system, or systemd, are likely to be
> default in the next year or two.)

Sounds like you already have done this. Blindly singing the praises of an 
Ubuntu developer just because he is a good public speaker and that he "seems 
competent." Have you ever even tried configuring upstart manually? It fights 
you. Every step of the way. IT takes away that much flexibility from the 
system just for the sake of taking off a few seconds of boot time.

I have no opinion on systemd as an init system, as I have no experience with 
it. But I have used upstart enough to know that it'll take more than its 
developer acting like he's a good programmer for me to take it seriously.

> 
> After writing the above, I checked my assumptions and Google found me
> Remnant's entirely reasonable blog post about systemd.
> http://netsplit.com/2010/04/30/on-systemd/

I'm talki

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Culley Smith]

I appreciate the links provided here.  I had found a few items on line as
well.

All I have read about upstart really just related to faster boot times,
which isn't that big of a sell-point for me.  I'm not saying I'm not opposed
to faster boot times, that would just be silly. I was just pointing out that
if that was all it offers, that alone wouldn't convince me to switch to
upstart.

However, it sounds like there is more to upstart and systemd than just
faster boot times.

So, thanks again for the info,
Culley

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Sander Jansen  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kaiting Chen 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jelle van der Waa 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it
> >> could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the
> >> devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old
> >> behaviour :P )
> >>
> >
> > First of all what exactly needs to be done to support upstart or systemd
> in
> > Arch? Packages for both exist in the AUR. Is it a drop in replacement
> > (perhaps add a kernel boot parameter init=/path/to/upstart)? Or is it
> more
> > involved than that? --Kaiting.
> >
>
> There's a topic (and wiki page) on the forum regarding systemd in Arch:
>
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=96316
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd
>
> Personally, I think systemd looks pretty interesting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>

Re: [arch-general] fetchmail/spamassassin error after update

[Ángel Velásquez]

2011/1/19 David C. Rankin :
> Guys,
>
>There seems to be a bug in the sa-learn path in either fetchmail or
> some other package that causes fetchmail to fail:
>
> 
> sh: /usr/bin/perlbin/vendor/sa-learn: No such file or directory
> *.*.***.***fetchmail: error writing
> message text
> 
>
> 14:38 phoenix:/srv/http/vhosts/drr> which sa-learn
> /usr/bin/vendor_perl/sa-learn
>
>I don't know where the /usr/bin/perlbin/vendor/sa-learn call is made
> (I presume fetchmail somewhere), but it looks like it needs to be updated to
> /usr/bin/vendor_perl/sa-learn.
>
>Is this a config change I need to fix somewhere or is this something
> that got overlooked in the spamassassin update?
>
>

what version of spamassassin do you have?

May I remember you about our bugtracker? [1]

[1] http://bugs.archlinux.org

-- 
Angel Velásquez
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User
Linux Counter: #359909
http://www.angvp.com

[arch-general] fetchmail/spamassassin error after update

[David C. Rankin]

Guys,

	There seems to be a bug in the sa-learn path in either fetchmail or some 
other package that causes fetchmail to fail:



sh: /usr/bin/perlbin/vendor/sa-learn: No such file or directory
*.*.***.***fetchmail: error writing 
message text



14:38 phoenix:/srv/http/vhosts/drr> which sa-learn
/usr/bin/vendor_perl/sa-learn

	I don't know where the /usr/bin/perlbin/vendor/sa-learn call is made (I 
presume fetchmail somewhere), but it looks like it needs to be updated to 
/usr/bin/vendor_perl/sa-learn.


	Is this a config change I need to fix somewhere or is this something that got 
overlooked in the spamassassin update?



--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Sander Jansen]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kaiting Chen  wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jelle van der Waa  wrote:
>
>> Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it
>> could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the
>> devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old
>> behaviour :P )
>>
>
> First of all what exactly needs to be done to support upstart or systemd in
> Arch? Packages for both exist in the AUR. Is it a drop in replacement
> (perhaps add a kernel boot parameter init=/path/to/upstart)? Or is it more
> involved than that? --Kaiting.
>

There's a topic (and wiki page) on the forum regarding systemd in Arch:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=96316

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd

Personally, I think systemd looks pretty interesting.

Cheers,

Sander

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Kaiting Chen]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jelle van der Waa  wrote:

> Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it
> could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the
> devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old
> behaviour :P )
>

First of all what exactly needs to be done to support upstart or systemd in
Arch? Packages for both exist in the AUR. Is it a drop in replacement
(perhaps add a kernel boot parameter init=/path/to/upstart)? Or is it more
involved than that? --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Isaac Dupree]

On 01/19/11 14:03, Yaro Kasear wrote:

And comments about Ubuntu and their competence are entirely relevant to this
discussion, as Upstart is entirely their creation. Would you rather I talk
about people who had nothing to do with its code? The Ubuntu devs are behind
Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual
system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an
improvement.


Argument ad hominem.  We can be precise; it's more obviously rude that 
way.  Scott James Remnant wrote Upstart.  I can't speak for Ubuntu, but 
I've seen Remnant presenting and he seemed quite competent.  Software is 
hard; Upstart was the first attempt at changing 'init' in decades, so 
there was little experiential knowledge of Linux 'init' development when 
it started in 2006.  In fact, in the process of writing Upstart, Remnant 
and his co-workers made Ubuntu boot faster largely by working with Xorg 
and Linux kernel developers.  There are now upstream changes due to the 
risk Ubuntu took with Upstart.  *Arch* therefore now boots faster 
because of Remnant.  He's a pretty smart guy who knows what he's doing 
even if some of us disagree with what he's doing; I was at his 
presentation "How We Made Ubuntu Boot Faster"

http://events.linuxfoundation.org/linuxcon2010/remnant

That is equally no reason to switch to Upstart.  We can be grateful to 
Remnant and choose the best (technically & socially) solution *for Arch* 
*in 2011*.  Of course he's enthusiastic about Upstart but I'm sure he 
wouldn't mind.  (I don't pretend to know which solution this is, though 
it sounds like Arch's current init system, or systemd, are likely to be 
default in the next year or two.)


After writing the above, I checked my assumptions and Google found me 
Remnant's entirely reasonable blog post about systemd. 
http://netsplit.com/2010/04/30/on-systemd/


-Isaac

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Jelle van der Waa]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 13:33 -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:53:44 pm C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
> >> >> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
> >> >> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast
> >> >> > provide them with something to test and with arguments, cause you
> >> >> > gave none...
> >> >>
> >> >> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
> >> >
> >> > In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use
> >> > Upstart.
> >>
> >> you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are
> >> wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant.
> >>
> >> i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then
> >> decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal
> >> (probably to learn/grow); myself included.
> >>
> >> please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of
> >> sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits.
> >>
> >> C Anthony
> >
> > No, I'm not trolling. I don't see how my statement is really all that
> > different than all the other one-line "god, I hope not" responses in this
> > thread. I just gave my reasons, that's the only difference between my post 
> > and
> > theirs.
> 
> your right, it isn't any different; it's equally pointless.
> 
> > The Ubuntu devs are behind
> > Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual
> > system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an
> > improvement.
> 
> > It was entirely about the quality of Upstart as it
> > was about the quality of Upstart's developers. And any programmer worth his
> > salt could tell you that if you suck at programming or even just design, 
> > your
> > software is going to suck, too.
> 
> so what if they wrote it... Ubuntu has contributed to the community in
> many ways, please respect them.  you are making a false connection.
> Upstart != Ubuntu.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
> 
> [ from my previous links (Lennart) ]
> "To begin with, let me emphasize that I actually like the code of
> Upstart, it is very well commented and easy to follow. It's certainly
> something other projects should learn from (including my own).  That
> being said, I can't say I agree with the general approach of Upstart."
> 
> > Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work 
> > with,
> > flexible, and its fast enough.
> 
> please see my previous post because sysvinit provides nothing.  you
> are talking about bash.
> 
> > I can EASILY set up entirely new bootlevels
> > with SysV on Arch (I did it with XBMC and I bet you my next lunch Upstart
> > can't do it.), something Upstart goes out of its way to avoid.
> 
> run levels are 99% pointless constructs.  even Arch barely cares about them.
> 
> > Don't crappify Arch just
> > because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided 
> > bandwagon
> > that takes Linux ass-backwards.
> 
> please actually _read_ my posts and the links provided... then simmer down.
> 
> i am full-force behind Systemd for several reasons i clearly outlined,
> not Upstart, though i commend Upstart for the initiative.  please
> contribute quality information or leave the conversation to the
> professional developers/administrators among use, not those who can't
> do anything but bang out a POS 17 line bash script.
> 
> C Anthony

Could all ubuntu trolls/ranters leave the building? 

I mean 90% of the emails in this thread are just about ubuntu versus the
world, this whole hate/rage/rant thread won't make the devs enthusiastic
for upstart. 

Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it
could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the
devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old
behaviour :P )

happy hacking, 

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:53:44 pm C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
>> >> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
>> >> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast
>> >> > provide them with something to test and with arguments, cause you
>> >> > gave none...
>> >>
>> >> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
>> >
>> > In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use
>> > Upstart.
>>
>> you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are
>> wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant.
>>
>> i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then
>> decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal
>> (probably to learn/grow); myself included.
>>
>> please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of
>> sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits.
>>
>> C Anthony
>
> No, I'm not trolling. I don't see how my statement is really all that
> different than all the other one-line "god, I hope not" responses in this
> thread. I just gave my reasons, that's the only difference between my post and
> theirs.

your right, it isn't any different; it's equally pointless.

> The Ubuntu devs are behind
> Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual
> system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an
> improvement.

> It was entirely about the quality of Upstart as it
> was about the quality of Upstart's developers. And any programmer worth his
> salt could tell you that if you suck at programming or even just design, your
> software is going to suck, too.

so what if they wrote it... Ubuntu has contributed to the community in
many ways, please respect them.  you are making a false connection.
Upstart != Ubuntu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[ from my previous links (Lennart) ]
"To begin with, let me emphasize that I actually like the code of
Upstart, it is very well commented and easy to follow. It's certainly
something other projects should learn from (including my own).  That
being said, I can't say I agree with the general approach of Upstart."

> Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with,
> flexible, and its fast enough.

please see my previous post because sysvinit provides nothing.  you
are talking about bash.

> I can EASILY set up entirely new bootlevels
> with SysV on Arch (I did it with XBMC and I bet you my next lunch Upstart
> can't do it.), something Upstart goes out of its way to avoid.

run levels are 99% pointless constructs.  even Arch barely cares about them.

> Don't crappify Arch just
> because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon
> that takes Linux ass-backwards.

please actually _read_ my posts and the links provided... then simmer down.

i am full-force behind Systemd for several reasons i clearly outlined,
not Upstart, though i commend Upstart for the initiative.  please
contribute quality information or leave the conversation to the
professional developers/administrators among use, not those who can't
do anything but bang out a POS 17 line bash script.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Yaro Kasear]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:53:44 pm C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
> >> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
> >> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast
> >> > provide them with something to test and with arguments, cause you
> >> > gave none...
> >> 
> >> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
> > 
> > In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use
> > Upstart.
> 
> you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are
> wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant.
> 
> i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then
> decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal
> (probably to learn/grow); myself included.
> 
> please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of
> sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits.
> 
> C Anthony

No, I'm not trolling. I don't see how my statement is really all that 
different than all the other one-line "god, I hope not" responses in this 
thread. I just gave my reasons, that's the only difference between my post and 
theirs.

And comments about Ubuntu and their competence are entirely relevant to this 
discussion, as Upstart is entirely their creation. Would you rather I talk 
about people who had nothing to do with its code? The Ubuntu devs are behind 
Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual 
system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an 
improvement.

How was that not relevant? It was entirely about the quality of Upstart as it 
was about the quality of Upstart's developers. And any programmer worth his 
salt could tell you that if you suck at programming or even just design, your 
software is going to suck, too.

You may not LIKE that I pointed this out about Ubuntu and Upstart, but it is 
absolutely 100% relevant.

I was one of those users who switched from Ubuntu to Arch. I didn't do it 
because I felt I was too l33t but because Ubuntu's many flaws started getting 
to me. Upstart was one of those flaws.

As I said before being falsely accused of being a troll by someone who 
couldn't make the connection between Ubuntu's developers and Upstart: Arch's 
current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with, 
flexible, and its fast enough. I can EASILY set up entirely new bootlevels 
with SysV on Arch (I did it with XBMC and I bet you my next lunch Upstart 
can't do it.), something Upstart goes out of its way to avoid.

So I'll say it again:

Arch switching to Upstart by default is a stupid idea. You want to use 
Upstart? Put a PKGBUILD on the AUR and use that. Don't crappify Arch just 
because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon 
that takes Linux ass-backwards.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
>> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
>> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
>> >
>> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide
>> > them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...
>>
>> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
>
> In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use Upstart.

you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are
wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant.

i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then
decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal
(probably to learn/grow); myself included.

please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of
sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Yaro Kasear]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> > > Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
> > > 
> > > Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
> > > 
> > > http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Madhur
> > 
> > For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and
> > get it documented via the archwiki.
> > 
> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide
> > them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...
> 
> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
> 
> ++

In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use Upstart.

Ubuntu may be a very user friendly distribution, but take that away and you 
get a distribution that's mediocre at the best of times. And its largely 
because the Ubuntu devs have no clue how to actually do a Linux system 
properly.

Upstart may be "fast" but I much prefer Arch's init system (With SysV 
pretending to act like BSD Init.) which is a lot more flexible and much 
simpler.

At the risk of sounding like a dick, sometimes I wish there was a way to flag 
ideas on this mailing list as Stupid Ideas(tm). Switching Arch to Upstart 
would be one of them.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Culley Smith  wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone with more insight into this matter can speak up as to the
> advantages of upstart vs System V init?

boot times are more of a side affect.  for upstart, this may have been
a primary goal, but there is much more to systemd.

sysvinit doesnt do anything for you _anything_ at all.  you pass
it a number, and it runs ONE app (usually) based on that number, and
all other apps up to that number.  it can respond to SIGINT, and
SIGPWR as well, but thats it.  everything else is giant bash scripts.
everything you see in /etc/inittab is the extent of sysvinit's power.

upstart takes advantage of udev to "bubble up" the init processes.
events "emitted" by udev rules trigger various hook points.  these
hooks fulfill goals, and them emit more events to eventually complete
the init goal process; in short, upstart takes a "bottoms up" approach
to init -- where you end up is based on the chain of things that have
already happened.  a downside to this is most dependencies are
explicit.

systemd is my personal favorite; it is a solid concept and the most
novel and complete solution.  systemd is related to upstart, but works
in the complete opposite direction.  with systemd, you define where
you WANT TO BE first, and actions "trickle down" to get you there.
this is the directly comparative to your thought processes.  for
example, you set `apache` as a goal/target... apache is started first.
 if apache needs a filesystem that isnt mounted, it is automounted.
if apache were to make a dbus request, the app on the other side is
only started at that point, not before.  and most importantly, if no
one has made an http request yet... apache isnt even started but
systemd listens on port 80, waiting to start apache when needed.
systemd is highly related to Apple's launchd.

init/pid 1 has special superpowers endowed to it by the kernel and we
should be taking advantage of this, not cutting it off at the neck.
not good for servers??  systemd allows you to actually _verify_ that
what you wanted started is appropriately started.  it lets you use
dbus to query init and verify these things in a consistent and
programmatic way.  it uses cgroups to ensure that apps cannot double
fork escape.  you can use these cgroups to limit memory/cpu/etc on a
per app basis.  systemd uses socket/dbus/FS activation... meaning it
blocks callers while it starts up the callee... this is 100%
TRANSPARENT to the caller.

this has nothing to do with "other distros using it".  sysvinit has
worked well yes; sometimes you fix things because there are better way
or times change, not because it's "broke".  seriously, have some
vision :-)

in short: upstart was a great kick in the ass, but i believe it works
from the wrong direction though i applaud ubuntu for their vision
while everyone is chanting "sysvinit works... blah blah woka woka
woka".  systemd is the future.  it is a true system state manager, and
takes over the menial aspects of startup/shutdown with fast code, and
even other less trivial processes like RAID.  it provides guarantees.
it provides interfaces.  it does all this with loose or implicit
dependencies.

i encourage everyone to read these insightful posts by Lennart:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-1.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-2.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-4.html

the first is an overview, the last 4 directed at system admins.  if
your still not convinced after reading those you either can't read
or you don't do any serious administration work.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Patrick Burroughs]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 20:06, Juan R. de Silva
 wrote:
> I'd like to install GNOME for my freshly installed base system following
> instructions provided on this page 'https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/
> GNOME#Base'. As you can see it reads:
>
> "Install the base GNOME desktop"
>
> # pacman -S gnome
>
> And then: "This is a meta-package; which is a group of packages. An
> option will be given to install all or some of the packages in this
> group."
>
> When I run the command above, the list of all files in group is displayed
> and the only option given to me is to answer Y/N to install the entire
> list of packages, that I would like to avoid.
>
> I've read through man pacman carefully a couple of times and I've not
> found any option allowing to filter out undesirable file/s while
> installing a group. Tried to search arch wiki without any success.
>
> Could anybody provide me with a hint here, please?

While I can't confirm this, my Arch box currently being dead, I
believe you can just hit 'N' and it will walk you through the list one
package at a time.

~celti

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Culley Smith]

Perhaps someone with more insight into this matter can speak up as to the
advantages of upstart vs System V init?  As far as I understand things, the
main thing being championed are boot times.  However, boot times are
somewhat misleading.  They may be great on fresh systems, and have an even
greater appeal to desktop users, but I've never found them all that
beneficial on servers with long uptimes.  However, does upstart have other
advantages over System V init?

Personally, if the main advantage is boot times, that isn't much of a boon
in my opinion.  I have a number of services and filesystem checks that I run
on boot time... more so on my servers than my desktop machines, so I already
figure in long boot times.

I guess my question here is, given that System V init has been around for
decades, are there pressing issues other than boot times that would warrant
a switch?

Thanks,
Culley

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Kazuo Teramoto  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Laurent Carlier 
> wrote:
> >
> > And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
>
> For me its is an unfavorable one. =]  If ubuntu did, think two times
> before doing it.
>
> @OP If you look at the forum you will find a lot of arguments showing
> how bad upstart is. It can be fast but at the cost of being PITA.
>
> Regards,
> Kazuo
> --
> “The journey is more important than the destination—that’s part of
> life, if you only live for getting to the end, you’re almost always
> disappointed.”
>
> Donald E. Knuth
>

Re: [arch-general] Syslinux Installer / Update Script - Testers Needed

[Matthew Gyurgyik]

On 01/19/2011 08:54 AM, Madeye wrote:

Just ran the script on my virtualbox archserver. And afterwards on a
virtualbox archlinux.
Unfortunately it's not working. I get the error:

Could not find /boot/syslinux
is /boot mounted? Is syslinux installed?

I only installed package syslinux and then ran the script.
./syslinux.sh -i -m -a

The usage mentions the use of a -c switch, but this does not change
anything. Actually I can see it tries to find the path //boot/syslinux
when using -c /
Guess the switch is only used when you want to install on a mounted
chroot system.

I am running the script from within the system I wish to install it on.

pacman -Q syslinux returns
syslinux 4.03-1

The folder /boot/syslinux in reality does not exist in the system yet.
So that is probably the reason for the error I get.
Is it intentional that the script checks for /boot/syslinux? or should
that have been just /boot?

If you need additional information, just let me know.

BR
The script intentionally checks for /boot/syslinux because com32 modules 
get copied their.


Syslinux from testing contains an example config file, 
/boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg, therefore creating /boot/syslinux. You can 
either install the syslinux package from testing or you can mkdir 
/boot/syslinux and create syslinux.cfg 
(http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/syslinux/trunk/syslinux.cfg). 
Make sure to edit the kernel options (root, nomodeset, etc..) in the 
config file.


pyther

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Kazuo Teramoto]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Laurent Carlier  wrote:
>
> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)

For me its is an unfavorable one. =]  If ubuntu did, think two times
before doing it.

@OP If you look at the forum you will find a lot of arguments showing
how bad upstart is. It can be fast but at the cost of being PITA.

Regards,
Kazuo
-- 
“The journey is more important than the destination—that’s part of
life, if you only live for getting to the end, you’re almost always
disappointed.”

Donald E. Knuth

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Cédric Girard]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Fidel Viegas
wrote:

>
> [...] as it is in my view better than system V.
>

Please explain why.

-- 
Cédric Girard

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Fidel Viegas]

On 19/01/11 11:29, Laurent Carlier wrote:

Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:

Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Thanks,
Madhur

For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and
get it documented via the archwiki.

If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide
them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...

And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)

++

Upstart was developed by an Ubuntu developer, hence the inclusion of it 
in the Ubuntu distribution. It would obviously be nice to have it in 
other distributions as it is in my view better than system V. However, 
as a newcomer to Arch and obviously respecting the Arch philosophy, I 
must agree with others that just because Ubuntu uses it, it does not 
mean that all other distributions must use it. There must be some tried 
experiment for the developers to consider it.


I am a long time Ubuntu user, and will not switch to another Desktop 
distro very soon. However, I have been looking for an alternative on the 
server side, and since I am also a BSD user, I really liked Arch. In 
fact I am experimenting virtualization on it, and will probably replace 
our current Ubuntu servers with it if it turns out to be more viable. 
Would upstart be nice to have? If it performs better in Arch, than yes. 
If not, well I a rather have a working System V, than have a non-working 
upstart one.


To conclude, "ubuntu use it" is not an enough argument to me.

Regards,

Fidel.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Karol Babioch]

Am 19.01.2011 09:03, schrieb KESHAV P.R.:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 13:29, Junior  wrote:
> 
> Can you please try systemd first (default in Fedora 15 rawhide)?
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd

Well after reading up some information about systemd, it seems to me
that it is a real advantage.

Although a complete integration into Arch seems to be unlikely, I think
it would be great if the installation of systemd would be even more
easy, although there has been great work already done.

Keep it up, guys!

Best regards,
Karol Babioch



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Ángel Velásquez]

2011/1/19 Madhur Ahuja :
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
>
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>
> Thanks,
> Madhur
>

I hope never :).

Anyway, we are not rpm or deb dependant to follow their schemes :D.

-- 
Angel Velásquez
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User
Linux Counter: #359909
http://www.angvp.com

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Tony]

On 01/18/2011 11:50 PM, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
>
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>
> Thanks,
> Madhur
Sysvinit does it's job just fine. I see no real reason to switch to
upstart when we already have Sysvinit. But as others have mentioned, you
may try Systemd. Also, just because other distributions embrace upstart,
it does not mean Arch needs to follow in the same path. Arch should
continue as it has been without following and/or trying to be like
*other* distributions. :-)

-- 
Tony C


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] Syslinux Installer / Update Script - Testers Needed

[Madeye]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:52:03 -0500
Matthew Gyurgyik  wrote:

> Hello Community,
> 
> Over the last few weeks I have been working on Syslinux support for
> the installer. With the help Thomas and Dieter I am nearing the
> completion of this project. As part of this project, I have written a
> script that will help install and update Syslinux (similar to that of
> grub-install).
> 
> Some key features of the script: syslinux-install_update.sh
> * Install Syslinux to the FS + Partition Boot Loader (extlinux
> --install /boot/syslinux)
> * Install Syslinux MBR
> * Detect and optionally set the boot flag on the boot partition
> * Update Syslinux – copy files and execute (extilnux --update 
> /boot/syslinux)
> * Support for GPT disks
> * Support for RAID configurations
> 
> The goal is to include this script in the official Syslinux package. 
> Therefore we need your help to test it.
> 
> syslinux-install_update.sh -i -a -m . install Syslinux, set the
> boot flag (if needed), and install the MBR
> 
> We need tests for the following setups:
> / + /boot on the *same* partition
> / + /boot on the *same* partition - RAID
> /boot + root on *separate* partition
> /boot + root on *separate* partition - RAID
> All of the above using but using the GPT partition layout
> 
> NOTE: This is an alpha/beta stage script. The script modifies the
> first 440 bytes of the disk (using dd) and the partition table (using
> either sfdisk or sgdisk). Although the script should be safe to run,
> I am not responsible for any data loss that may occur.
> 
> Let us know the following:
> * Did the script work for you?
> * What was your partition setup? (see above)
> * What version did you use?
> * If the script did not work, please provide as much information as
> possible
> 
> Get the script here: https://gist.github.com/772138
> Syslinux Sample Config File: 
> http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/syslinux/trunk/syslinux.cfg
> 
> The Syslinux package in testing includes the above configuration file.
> 
> Cheers,
> pyther

Just ran the script on my virtualbox archserver. And afterwards on a
virtualbox archlinux.
Unfortunately it's not working. I get the error:

Could not find /boot/syslinux
is /boot mounted? Is syslinux installed?

I only installed package syslinux and then ran the script. 
./syslinux.sh -i -m -a

The usage mentions the use of a -c switch, but this does not change
anything. Actually I can see it tries to find the path //boot/syslinux
when using -c /
Guess the switch is only used when you want to install on a mounted
chroot system.

I am running the script from within the system I wish to install it on.

pacman -Q syslinux returns
syslinux 4.03-1

The folder /boot/syslinux in reality does not exist in the system yet.
So that is probably the reason for the error I get.
Is it intentional that the script checks for /boot/syslinux? or should
that have been just /boot?

If you need additional information, just let me know.

BR
-- 
\Madeye

- The box said to install Windows 95 or better,
  so I installed ARCH Linux!

- System Setup: AMD64 X2 6400+ with 4GB ram and 1910GB harddrive.
  Running Arch Linux x86_64

--
- Registered Linux user #167944 since 2000-02-28 (｡◕‿◕｡) -
--
- Jabber: @@ madeye at jabber dot org @@ -
--

Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] Please settle 'base' in 'depends' for all

[Dieter Plaetinck]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:20:58 +0100
Thomas Bächler  wrote:

> Am 19.01.2011 08:08, schrieb Allan McRae:
> > If we want to be really pedantic about dependencies, we should list
> > _ALL_ dependencies and not remove the ones that are dependencies of
> > dependencies.
> 
> Why don't we just do the correct thing:
> 
> If package A depends on package B, and B depends on C, then A might
> depend on C explicitly because it accesses C directly. Or it might
> only depend on indirectly C because B accesses C. We should reflect
> that in dependencies (in the first case, A depends on C, in the
> second case it doesn't).
> 
> The result is this: Whenever the dependencies of B change (e.g., C is
> removed), A will still work correctly.
> 

I'm also fan of this. The added correctness (both informational and
system robustness) justifies the little overhead, imho.

Dieter

Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] Please settle 'base' in 'depends' for all

[Dieter Plaetinck]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:08:27 +1000
Allan McRae  wrote:

> On 19/01/11 15:19, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > Okay everyone, every time I ask I get a different answer. According
> > to Dziedzic and Allan 'glibc' does *not* belong in 'depends'. Also
> > Dziedzic votes that *no* package in 'base' should be in 'depends'.
> > Can we settle once and for all what the correct policy is? And then
> > can we update the wiki page and all of these packages
> > http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/i686/glibc/so that they
> > reflect the policy? --Kaiting.
> >
> 
> In general, I think packages in 'base' need listed.  Mainly because I
> do not install a fair number of the base packages and would have even
> less of them installed if they were not listed as dependencies.

If we allow users to not (explicitly) install base packages and support
such schemes by adding more detailed dependencies,
then we could just as well scratch the base group, because it becomes
pointless.
Actually I would prefer this approach: throw the concept of the base
group away, all the *needed* packages will get installed anyway,
because they are dependencies for packages the user explictly wants.

Dieter

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Denis A . Altoé Falqueto]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Allan McRae  wrote:
>> According to my understanding of pacman's manpage, the option --ignore
>> should be enough to filter out what you don't want. For example
>>
>> # pacman -S gnome --ignore abc,def,hgi,.
>>
>> I believe I've used it like that for a similar situation.
>>
>
> Except that is a bit broken with the current pacman...  and when I say a bit
> broken, I mean it does not work at all.

:-O

/me cries in desolation

-- 
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?

---
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
---

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Allan McRae]

On 19/01/11 20:35, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Juan R. de Silva
  wrote:

Best option RIGHT NOW is to pacman -Sg gnome and then manually pacman -
-Suy pkgfoo pkgbar pkgyetanother of the ones you want from the list.



Boy, what's an opportunity to exercise my typing. I'm working in tty
now.  :-(


According to my understanding of pacman's manpage, the option --ignore
should be enough to filter out what you don't want. For example

# pacman -S gnome --ignore abc,def,hgi,.

I believe I've used it like that for a similar situation.



Except that is a bit broken with the current pacman...  and when I say a 
bit broken, I mean it does not work at all.


Allan

Re: [arch-general] how to perform selected gnome installation with pacman?

[Denis A . Altoé Falqueto]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Juan R. de Silva
 wrote:
>> Best option RIGHT NOW is to pacman -Sg gnome and then manually pacman -
>> -Suy pkgfoo pkgbar pkgyetanother of the ones you want from the list.
>>
>
> Boy, what's an opportunity to exercise my typing. I'm working in tty
> now.  :-(

According to my understanding of pacman's manpage, the option --ignore
should be enough to filter out what you don't want. For example

# pacman -S gnome --ignore abc,def,hgi,.

I believe I've used it like that for a similar situation.

-- 
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?

---
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
---

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Laurent Carlier]

Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> > Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
> > 
> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
> > 
> > http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Madhur
> 
> For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and
> get it documented via the archwiki.
> 
> If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide
> them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...

And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)

++

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Jelle van der Waa]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
> 
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
> 
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
> 
> Thanks,
> Madhur

For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and
get it documented via the archwiki. 

If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide
them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Greg Bur]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 04:12 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
> 
> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
> >
> 
> Oh God please never. It would be nice to have it as an option for users who
> are interested (I'm totally for an officially supported option) but there's
> no need to complicate the init system for users who want to run Arch on for
> example a server who have no use for upstart or systemd. --Kaiting.
> 

Me too!  Me too!  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Sergej Pupykin]

At Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:50:05 +0700,
Madhur Ahuja  wrote:
> 
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
> 
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

I hope never.

Btw, I think you can use
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=upstart

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Kaiting Chen]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Madhur Ahuja wrote:

> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>

Oh God please never. It would be nice to have it as an option for users who
are interested (I'm totally for an officially supported option) but there's
no need to complicate the init system for users who want to run Arch on for
example a server who have no use for upstart or systemd. --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Thomas Bächler]

Am 19.01.2011 08:50, schrieb Madhur Ahuja:
> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
> 
> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
> 
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

I'd say, never. I haven't really read the details about upstart and
systemd. However, somebody is already working on integrating systemd
into Arch - and if we ever want to move away from sysvinit, I say we
build upon this work instead.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Ionuț Bîru]

On 01/19/2011 09:50 AM, Madhur Ahuja wrote:

Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Thanks,
Madhur


never, unless somebody from the community want and participate.

in arch the things work like this, you want it, you do it and then 
present it to the community as a solution.


only then you can ask the question, when arch will switch to it.

--
Ionuț

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[KESHAV P.R.]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 13:39, slubman  wrote:
> Why not looking systemd[1], which is a freedesktop.org project?
>
> [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
>
>

Heh Heh, I beat you by 5 minutes.Anyway all the Fedora rawhide build
use systemd by default and upstart as standby -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd .

- Keshav

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[slubman]

Why not looking systemd[1], which is a freedesktop.org project?

[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd


>In any case, great jobs guys! I love arch!
>
>On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Madhur Ahuja
>wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
>>
>> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>>
>> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Madhur
>>
-- 
slubman
site: http://www.slubman.info/

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[KESHAV P.R.]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 13:29, Junior  wrote:
> I would also love to see this, but I can imagine the task is pretty hefty.
> In any case, great jobs guys! I love arch!
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.
>>
>> Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?
>>
>> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Madhur
>>

Can you please try systemd first (default in Fedora 15 rawhide)?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd

Regards.

Keshav