Re: [arch-general] systemd, running scripts after suspend/hibernate
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Heiko Baums > wrote: > >> The way I read it is that the sort of problems you would typically > >> workaround with suspend hooks are best solved somewhere else, probably > >> in the kernel driver. > > [...] > > > Now the Linux kernel is blamed for the systemd insufficiencies and > > bugs. > > In case there are still people out there who might take what Heiko > writes seriously: > > The advice about trying to avoid scripts in systemd-sleep is not about > passing the blame, nor is it due to bugs in systemd. > > The systemd-sleep logic provides the same features as the equivalent > pm-utils hooks did, this means that we are no worse than before. No > new bugs, no regressions, no missing features. > > That said, it is obvious by looking at what kind of hooks were written > for pm-utils, that they are all hacks/workarounds for bugs that should > have been fixed elsewhere. For this reason, we want to discourage > people from using these hooks, and rather fix the bugs they are used > to work around > > If it turns out that there are examples that are not actually bugs, > but a valid use of these hooks (I have yet to see one), then the > functionality is still there. Same if you just like using the hooks > for silly things, or if fixing the relevant bugs is too hard for you. > The functionality is there. There is really nothing to complain about. > > My apologies if I was unclear in my first email, and I hope that this > leaves no room for misinterpretation. > > Cheers, > > Tom > Exactly, for example I need to use a systemd-sleep hook to workaround a bug in the kernel ehci_hcd driver. It had already been reported upstream (and it looks like it may be finally fixed in kernel 3.6!), but it took years for upstream to fix it, so I've always had to use a pm-utils or systemd-sleep hook. A local hack to workaround a bug until it was fixed upstream. I've had no problems so far with systemd-sleep hooks compared to pm-utils hook, it seems to have all the same functionality. I only had to change 2 lines on my pm-utils hook to make it work with systemd too.
Re: [arch-general] gnome-shell performance problems
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jan Steffens wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Pico Geyer wrote:> > > I thought nouveau-dri was mainly for opengl type acceleration. > > Is there something I can go read to clear this up? > > GNOME Shell uses OpenGL. > Yep, what was probably happening is since he didn't have the 3d nouveau driver installed, gnome-shell fell back to LLVMpipe rendering which is cpu intensive.
Re: [arch-general] Is Nouveau 2D or 3D acceleration driver for nVidia cards?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Kelvin wrote: > The description of package xf86-video-nouveau ( > http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xf86-video-nouveau) is > "Open > Source 2D acceleration driver for nVidia cards", but Arch Wiki( > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Nouveau) says that it is "Open Source > 3D acceleration graphics driver for NVIDIA cards". Is there any mistakes? > Both. afiak it started out as a 2d driver, but these days it also has [limited] 3d acceleration.
Re: [arch-general] xf86-video-intel-2.20.5
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: > On 08/28/2012 02:43 PM, Jameson wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Neil Perry wrote: > >> It seems to be SNA causing the problem. I have swapped over to UXA for > the > >> time being, been stable for the like 3 hours. > > > > Yep. UXA is working fine for me, also. > > For what its worth - i still have crashes with UXA just very much less > frequent. > > I logged it here: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30921 > > gene/ > Works excellent here with intel ironlake and sna
Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia < archli...@ishpeck.net> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:34:28AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote: > > > Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable > > > enough to be used (in general, not only by you)? > > > > Felipe Contreras > > > > > Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular > > distros already? Fedora 15+ , Opensuse 12.1 , Mageia 2, Mandriva 2011... > I > > don't know why you keep hanging onto this idea that systemd is "untested" > > Seems to me like the argument is that it's untested in /this/ distro. > Doesn't matter how well it works for Fedora. Arch isn't Fedora so > that doesn't necessarily apply. > > > But it *isn't* untested in arch, its been in the repos for a while and already has a pretty healthy userbase.
Re: [arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyway we are talking about 2 seconds... > > We are talking about a difference of 100%. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > You are being pedantic. A 2 second difference is negligible, and certainly not the huge issue you are making it out to be.
Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase > wrote: > > On 22.08.2012 02:48, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 22.08.2012 02:10, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary > change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken > things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as > well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make > the big switch (which is clearly not now). > > >>> Arch is not sensible in the conservative sense. Being conservative here > >>> means waiting for others to make the software more stable. This is not > >>> really what Arch is about. We regularly move to software that is > >>> just-about-enough stable to be used. As far as I am concerned, systemd > is > >>> at > >>> that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any > >>> problems > >>> at all. > >> > >> So if it works for you, it will surely work for *everybody* else. I > >> have seen this argument so many times that I'm starting to worry about > >> the rationality of Arch Linux users and developers. > > > > I said "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was > able > > to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all." > > In other words: > > "I was able to convert my laptop to systemd without any problems" > Therefore: "systemd is stable enough to be used" > > > You say I somehow > > said something along the lines of "As far as I am concerned, systemd is > at > > that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any > problems > > at all so it will surely work for *everybody* else." > > You didn't say systemd is at the point where "*I* am able to use it", > you implied that systemd is at the point where it is stable enough to > be used (in general). > > * "systemd is at that point" > * "We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be > used." > > If this is not what you intended to say, then it seems like a red herring. > > Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable > enough to be used (in general, not only by you)? > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular distros already? Fedora 15+ , Opensuse 12.1 , Mageia 2, Mandriva 2011... I don't know why you keep hanging onto this idea that systemd is "untested" or "unproven", because it isn't. In fact its already been fairly well tested on arch, plenty of arch users are using it already.
Re: [arch-general] time zone problem with systemd
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Shridhar Daithankar < ghodech...@ghodechhap.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I am having trouble with time on a machine when I boot with systemd. The > clock > is ahead of actual time by the value of time zone offset. > > Funny thing is when I boot with initscripts, time is reported correctly. > > I have this problem on one machine but other machine works correctly. The > only > difference I can spot is hwclock reports local time, on the machine where > time > is correct. > > Whats the magic that I am missing? > > with systemd > --- > [shridhar@waman ~]$ date > Sat Aug 18 14:23:16 IST 2012 > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ cat /etc/timezone > Asia/Kolkata > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ ls -al /etc/localtime > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 Aug 11 02:02 /etc/localtime -> > /usr/share/zoneinfo/Asia/Kolkata > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ cat /etc/adjtime > 0.00 0 0.00 > 0 > UTC > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ grep -i hwclock /etc/rc.conf > DAEMONS=(hwclock syslog-ng dbus network crond @cpufreq @openntpd @dnsmasq > @sshd @laptop-mode kdm) > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ grep -i hardware /etc/rc.conf > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:26:28 PM IST -0.110228 seconds > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock -u > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:29:35 PM IST -0.375925 seconds > --- > > with initscripts > --- > [shridhar@waman ~]$ date > Sat Aug 18 08:44:09 IST 2012 > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:33:05 PM IST -0.146140 seconds > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock -u > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:33:10 PM IST -0.438390 seconds > > --- > > > > -- > Regards > Shridhar > Apologies, looks like you already did that (I just woke up and must have scrolled past it, heh )
Re: [arch-general] time zone problem with systemd
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Shridhar Daithankar < ghodech...@ghodechhap.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I am having trouble with time on a machine when I boot with systemd. The > clock > is ahead of actual time by the value of time zone offset. > > Funny thing is when I boot with initscripts, time is reported correctly. > > I have this problem on one machine but other machine works correctly. The > only > difference I can spot is hwclock reports local time, on the machine where > time > is correct. > > Whats the magic that I am missing? > > with systemd > --- > [shridhar@waman ~]$ date > Sat Aug 18 14:23:16 IST 2012 > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ cat /etc/timezone > Asia/Kolkata > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ ls -al /etc/localtime > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 Aug 11 02:02 /etc/localtime -> > /usr/share/zoneinfo/Asia/Kolkata > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ cat /etc/adjtime > 0.00 0 0.00 > 0 > UTC > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ grep -i hwclock /etc/rc.conf > DAEMONS=(hwclock syslog-ng dbus network crond @cpufreq @openntpd @dnsmasq > @sshd @laptop-mode kdm) > > [shridhar@waman ~]$ grep -i hardware /etc/rc.conf > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:26:28 PM IST -0.110228 seconds > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock -u > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:29:35 PM IST -0.375925 seconds > --- > > with initscripts > --- > [shridhar@waman ~]$ date > Sat Aug 18 08:44:09 IST 2012 > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:33:05 PM IST -0.146140 seconds > > [root@waman shridhar]# hwclock -u > Sat 18 Aug 2012 02:33:10 PM IST -0.438390 seconds > > --- > > > > -- > Regards > Shridhar > Make sure you symlink your timezone to /etc/localtime as described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginner%27s_Guide#Timezone
Re: [arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, John K Pate > wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:31 +0200 > > Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto > >> wrote: > >> > This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem > >> > was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also > >> > have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say > >> > you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to > >> > CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the > >> > behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored. > >> > >> My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists > >> independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not. > > > > But it suggests that the problem is not *just* systemd and > > CONFIG_HZ=300. I am, and many others are, running systemd with > > CONFIG_HZ=300 fine. > > Show me two bootcharts, one with CONFIG_HZ_300=y, and another with > CONFIG_HZ_1000=y. Then I will believe that you are running systemd > fine. The other possibility is that you are just not noticing the > problem. > > > If you encountered a problem, there must be some > > other underlying cause. A constructive response would work towards > > finding and addressing the other underlying cause. > > A logical reason would be that systemd is too sensitive on signals > arriving fast, and if that's the case it's quite likely that there is > no easy solution (if any). > > But anyway, my objective is not to improve systemd (I might have tried > that if Lennart wasn't such an asshole), my objective is to show that > systemd has problems, and CONFIG_HZ_300=y is just an example... there > are other issues popping in arch-general that render the system > unbootable. > > Perhaps in the future I will have time to investigate the issue, and > make a proper bug report, and systemd would work properly for me, and > most Arch Linux users, but I believe that's not the case *currently*. > > So I believe the logical course of action is to delay the migration > until systemd is more robust. > > All I want is to minimize the issues that Arch Linux users hit, but > unfortunately so far it seems Arch Linux developers don't care about > how many problems could this move cause. > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > So far it seems you are the only one with this "issue" and you haven't reported any bugs, so I don't see what you hope to accomplish
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote: > > > A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. > Its > > best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people > > systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the > > fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time > > ago). > > It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage? > > No. It is best to do it later; to minimize the problems. > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it can sometimes exacerbate problems.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman > wrote: > > On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras > wrote: > >> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait? > >> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so > >> many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems? > > > > Felipe, we've been doing that all along. This _is_ in the process of > > 'another year', and we there was never any hurry. We have had a TODO > > list for the unit files for some time, and now we have made it a > > priority to complete it. In the meantime, we expect bugs will be > > reported from testers, and they will be fixed. I think you have > > misunderstood the situation; nobody's making any kind of 'move' > > tomorrow. > > So if this is the 'another year' does that mean this *must* go in this > year? No. If systemd is still not ready, why force it? Wait another > year. And if the next year it's still not ready, then the next one. > > Why break systems *now*? Clearly there are problems with systemd (I > see a lot of them in arch-general). > > Even if you were not seeing problems now, you should expect problems > when deploying (as the machines affected would be many more). So if > you are seeing problems *now*, that's a good sign that you shouldn't > go forward, even if you manage to fix all the currently known > problems. > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time ago). of course you will see people posting to the mailing list/bbs/irc with systemd issues, because *those are the places people go for help*. People post about issues with sysvinit/initscripts too. "I saw some a few people post with issues with systemd on the mailing list" is hardly a valid metric of whether its production ready or not. Systemd has already undergone a fair amount of testing in arch, many people were using it when it was in the aur, and many more when it made it to the repos. The experience has already smoothed out significantly. Teething issues will happen and will be dealt with.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:58AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > > > On 16 August 2012 03:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > > > >> It is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on for running our GNU/Linux > > >> systems. It so happens that this time it's a core part of the system > > >> that's being 'standardised'. If you're not a fan of freedesktop.org, > > >> then I'm afraid that's a religious position you choose to take. > > > > > > That is completely upside down. Blindly accepting truth 'fom above'. > > > in this case freedesktop.org, is a religious attitude. Refusing > > > to do that certainly is not. > > > > Sorry, I do not recall anyone blindly accepting any kind of truth. > > See above: "It is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on". > > s/upstream/god/ > > Haven't seen anything as close to blind faith as that recently. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > > No one said they are blindly accepting anything upstream does without any thought, you should stop putting words in people's mouths and making ridiculous accusation of 'religious fundamentalism'.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng > wrote: > > On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler > wrote: > >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > >> 1./ Be a small simple binary > > > > The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's > > /sbin/init, but not by much). > > But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*. > >>> > >>> /sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. What is your point? > >> > >> The rest are rather simple scripts (in the case of Arch Linux). > >> > >> And you are still ignoring the fact that systemd is anything but > >> *simple*. How convenient to ignore that argument. > > > > Here are my two cents about that: > > * I don't care about having a faster boot if the sequence is incorrect > > or buggy (or, worse, leaves me with an unbootable system) > > * I don't care about having a simpler boot if it doesn't work > > * I don't care about systemd or bash scripts as long as it is > > maintained and bug-fixed. > > Well, systemd is known to cause problems that render the system unbootable: > https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+unbootable > > -- > Felipe Contreras > Are you serious? This post amounts to flame-bait at best. Almost all of the results from that search are about windows. You can google the same thing with sysvinit or initscripts and get bug reports too, so what is this supposed to prove?
Re: [arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I just became aware that Arch Linux plans to switch to systemd, and > this worries me for several reasons. > > I tried systemd a while ago in a brand new machine with Arch Linux and > the boot was *much slower*. After some exchanges with Lennart > Poettering and other people in Google+[1], it became clear I was on my > own. Eventually I found the culprit: Fedora uses CONFIG_HZ_1000, and > Arch Linux uses CONFIG_HZ_300. It became clear to me that systemd was > not ready for prime time, it wasn't thoroughly tested in a lot of > machines, and if you have problems Lennart Poettering will blame you > (PulseAudio sounds familiar?). > > systemd was the reason I stopped using Fedora in the first place; when > they moved to it my machine stopped booting reliably. My configuration > was non-standard (a single encrypted partition), so I guess they never > tested that. Similarly, I expect many Arch Linux users to bite these > corner-cases. > > Finally, it's much harder to debug. If you have a problem you will not > be able to open a script and figure out what is happening, and perhaps > modify it, and debug it. You would be greeted with an unmodified > binary, and the source code would be along these lines: > > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/remount-fs/remount-fs.c > > I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice > advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked > into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that. > > I was expecting more from the Arch Linux community, something along > the lines of Google's analysis to pick to mercurial[2], but so far I > have only seen a couple of people saying +1 in the development mailing > list, with barely any explanation at all. Such an important move (one > that might make users' machines stop booting) should warrant at least > an analysis of some sort, with clear advantages. Would it not? > > At the moment I am unconvinced; does systemd has any *real* advantage? > I don't think so; the potential of breakage outweighs the "supposed" > advantages, and I think a proper analysis would show that. > > Cheers. > > [1] https://plus.google.com/108736516888538655285/posts/BTG39o6YoGS > [2] http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis > > -- > Felipe Contreras > I haven't had this issue at all, and so far the systemd developers have been very accommodating to the arch developers
Re: [arch-general] OT: "Major distributions"
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Timothy Rice wrote: > > As a rolling release, Arch is usually the leader of adopt new technology. > > But now, Arch is falling behind Debian now. So sad. > > Arch Linux is also about simplicity. For me, this is more important > than the rolling-releaseness and bleeding-edgeness. If Arch lags behind > Debian, that is fine by me; some things that Debian does by default I > don't like because of their complexity. Also keep in mind, once upon a > time, Debian was the bleeding edge distro; if Debian wants to reclaim > that title then more power to Debian. > > I like both Debian and Arch, and I say, let's not get too stressed if > Debian > is occasionally more cutting edge. It's all still Linux, and Arch can only > thrive on a little competition of this nature. > Arch is still a simple system that you can still build from the ground up (and in fact the installer has gone 'back to the roots' recently). I don't think this change makes arch any less KISS, IMO.
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Norbert Zeh wrote: > David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]: > > What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has > > been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I > > think it is possible to like one and not the other. > > Indeed. The heated discussion about systemd actually had the effect that > I gave > it a whirl to find out for myself what the fuss is all about, and I must > say > that I quite like it so far, while I find pulseaudio is an abysmal piece of > software. So I think your point is a good one. > > On the other hand, in my mind, pulseaudio has quite some bearing on the > discussion about systemd. There have been endless complaints about this > and > that piece of hardware not working well with pulseaudio, and I myself > never got > my mic to work properly with pulseaudio and recently started to experience > serious audio delays when playing sound through pulseaudio. Yet, > Poettering's > response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: > it's > ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of > everything > working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the > problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new > init > system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road > things > start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be > again that > systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing > systemd > to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. > > Cheers, > Norbert > This is due to the fact that pulseaudio utilizes the audio drivers in different ways than straight alsa, exposing previously unknown or ignored driver bugs. there is only so much pulseaudio can do to work around buggy drivers.
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Geoff wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300 > Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: > > > You should check arch-dev-public :) > > > > It's a funny thread > > > > > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html > > Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do, > however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very > saddening. > It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here. > > "Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls. > -- > Gaetan" > > Perhaps we should all just shut up and do as we are told. > > Geoff > To be fair, people on this mailing list did turn a thread asking to help test a polkit patch into a giant flamewar about pulseaudio and lennart, so can you blame them for calling our "trolls"?
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote: > On 14 August 2012 12:20, Brandon Watkins wrote: > >> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against > >> upstart or OpenRC > >> > > Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from > > lennart's site... > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > > This table looks like a bad advert "only our product includes all of > the features". of course I'm sure he made sure to only include those > ones that were yes for systemd... and quite a few are BS. one "yes" is > a graphical UI... sigh. > > One thing about upstart I like is that it has good documentation, a > good development team, is also being adopted readily, and has good > unit testing in place. It also has a clear development direction. > > Calvin > Yep, thats what the disclaimer was for :) there's definitely some silly stuff on the chart like the bzr vs svn vs bzr thing at the end lol, so of course take it with a grain of salt.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against > upstart or OpenRC > Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from lennart's site... http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote: > On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault > wrote: > > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful > administrative > > features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been > around in > > our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable > enough > > for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once > the > > 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our > efforts > > on two init systems. > > > > Any objections to start the migration process ? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of > those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't > order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but > I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an > unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is > systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for > several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC? > > before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have > been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should > revisit them. > > Calvin > Systemd isn't going anywhere anytime soon, its going to be adopted by RHEL (which means it would also be adopted by RHEL derivatives like CentOS), and its being adopted by major distros like fedora, opensuse, mageia etc... >From what I've read systemd seems to have more active development and have a more modern design than upstart that allows for more parallelism during boot (even driven vs socket driven) I'm sure there's someone that can explain that better than me though. On the developer side, I'm sure it will make things easier for the arch devs using the upstream "standard" init system, because it wil be well tested across many distros. Also from what I've heard the systemd developers have been quite friendly making fixes to systemd so that it better supports arch. On the user-side I find systemd much easier to maintain my system with than sysvinit. I find the service files a lot cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts (service files are also portable so they can be included with upstream packages).
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:46 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes > > > about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than > > > about anything else. > > > > > > Why is it like that? > > > > Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill. > > I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I > suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein? > If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP. > > Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I > tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC > switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might > cause issues, when not using systemd?! > > Sorry, I'm not an expert. > > Regards, > Ralf > > Netcfg works fine without systemd, if you are referring to the recent news item that said "netcfg is dropping initscripts compatibility", thats just poorly titled, netcfg simply no longer supports having its config option in rc.conf.
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Paul Dann wrote: > > Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to > go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd > say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and > Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases > for those that can't risk breakage. > > > Agreed, and this is also one of the things arch embodies. It puzzles me how users of a distro that is known for being "bleeding edge" and upstream friendly are so surprised that this is happening and so afraid of change...This is what arch linux is.
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Baho Utot wrote: > On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa >> wrote: >> >> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote: >>> >>>> I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is >>>> >>> hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. >>> Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf? >>> >>> It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use >>> it. >>> >>> -- >>> Jelle van der Waa >>> >>> Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and >>> >> after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to >> deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files >> so >> much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also >> portable and can be included in upstream packages. >> >> This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I >> keep >> seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to >> systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, >> giving >> plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the >> event that that ever happened. >> >> Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you >> want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what >> happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be >> "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use >> sysvinit... >> > > I don't think you fully understand the issue. > > If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is > now > Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init > systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init > methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you > great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes > fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev > and everyone else be damned. > > Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as > part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that > would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the > highway...which indeed is the problem. > > > Poettering didn't kidnap the udev developers and force them to merge with systemd. And yes I am aware of his comments regarding udev, I saw a comment elsewhere that I think explains what he meant pretty well: "What he's saying is "non-systemd systems are dead in our eyes because no one is maintaining them; we will maintain udev without systemd as promised, but don't ask us to spend our time making it pretty; if you want that pay someone to do that for you". I don't see what's unclear here." Lets take a hypothetical situation: If udev someday only works well with systemd (which is wild speculation...) then if there is enough interest, an alternative would appear for people who don't use systemd. If there isn't enough interest in other init systems and an alternative then you could suck it up and switch. Also, I will state once again that I think people are highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to systemd, its quite simple. If arch were to one day switch to systemd and not support initscripts, it would not be the end of the world (and again this is wild speculation/FUD in the first place...)
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote: > > I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is > hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. > Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf? > > It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use > it. > > -- > Jelle van der Waa > > Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages. This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened. Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
Re: [arch-general] What can be deleted, when not using systemd - was: polkit package upgrade patch
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Baho Utot wrote: > My point is the constant bloat with software today. Theses bloated > packages will not fit/function on hand held devices. > You were quite specific with your point here, and I disagree.
Re: [arch-general] When will LibreOffice 3.6 proposed ?
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:24 AM, fredbezies wrote: > 2012/8/11 Andreas Radke : > > I've updated the PKGBUILD.36 files for libreoffice and libreoffice-i18n > > in svn trunk. > > > > Every user should now be able to build the new version. > > > > -Andy > > Thanks. I've tweaked them yesterday, and so far so good. It seems LibO > 3.6 is faster on start than 3.5.x. > > -- > Frederic Bezies > fredbez...@gmail.com > Excellent, I always like to see speed improvements in LO :)
Re: [arch-general] What can be deleted, when not using systemd - was: polkit package upgrade patch
I think people are really exaggerating how "bloated" systemd is. I fail to see how systemd would have issues running on mobile devices, if anything its more optimized for embedded devices.
Re: [arch-general] When will LibreOffice 3.6 proposed ?
I'm afraid its going to happen unless you know of a way to make gmail stop top-posting :p On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote: > > Yeah, it does work. I had a read a few posts earlier saying that > spellcheck > > was "broken" in libreoffice 3.6, but it turns out it was all hyperbole, > > they were just referring to this bug which is certainly not totally > broken > > spellcheck: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53006 > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, fredbezies > wrote: > > > >> 2012/8/10 fredbezies : > >> > 2012/8/10 Brandon Watkins : > >> >> Spellcheck is currently broken in 3.6.0 afiak, so probably best to > wait > >> >> until the point release. > >> > > >> > Well, if you don't wipe previous configuration, it could be broken. > >> > And as there is PKGBUILD.36 files, will try by myself. Good to learn > >> > some more things on build process :D > >> > >> Get it build, wiped my previous profile, and spellcheck seems to work. > >> Now waiting for 3.6.1 :) > >> > >> Until then, I will play with my homemade version :D > >> > >> -- > >> Frederic Bezies > >> fredbez...@gmail.com > >> > > Please don't top-post. >
Re: [arch-general] When will LibreOffice 3.6 proposed ?
Yeah, it does work. I had a read a few posts earlier saying that spellcheck was "broken" in libreoffice 3.6, but it turns out it was all hyperbole, they were just referring to this bug which is certainly not totally broken spellcheck: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53006 On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, fredbezies wrote: > 2012/8/10 fredbezies : > > 2012/8/10 Brandon Watkins : > >> Spellcheck is currently broken in 3.6.0 afiak, so probably best to wait > >> until the point release. > > > > Well, if you don't wipe previous configuration, it could be broken. > > And as there is PKGBUILD.36 files, will try by myself. Good to learn > > some more things on build process :D > > Get it build, wiped my previous profile, and spellcheck seems to work. > Now waiting for 3.6.1 :) > > Until then, I will play with my homemade version :D > > -- > Frederic Bezies > fredbez...@gmail.com >
Re: [arch-general] OT: [arch-dev-public] polkit package upgrade patch
Systemd and pulseaudio are completely different pieces of software with different purposes. Comparing them like that just because of the author is comparing apples to oranges. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:27:33 +0200 > schrieb Tom Gundersen : > > > Please guys, not again... > > > > Take your concerns upstream, nothing will come off rehashing them > > here for the hundredths time. > > Those concerns have been reported upstream a long while ago. They are > just ignored resp. upstream doesn't have any better to do than to > blaming ALSA even if ALSA supports those audio cards perfectly > out-of-the-box. > > Then PA upstream has written an obscure ALSA configuration which > crippled those cards down to simple stereo cards and closed the bug > report as fixed even if this is not even a dirty workaround. > > Now, after a lot of discussions on several mailing lists, they suddenly > say that PA is only meant for desktop purposes, but not for > professional audio. On the other hand they do everything to make it a > pseudo standard. > > And systemd seems to be similar. I also don't like that you want to > imprint this systemd stuff everybody even if one doesn't have systemd > installed. See systemd-tools and systemd-cryptsetup. Well, I know that > you filed the issue about reading the key rawly from a block device to > upstream. But they did forgot it. What else did they forget? I have the > impression that Lennart only thinks halfway through and doesn't have > much knowledge about professional computer and UNIX usage. Maybe his > ideas have some good aspects, but he simply can't implement it > professionally and in a UNIX style. He seems to only think about > desktop users but definitely not about (semi-)professional users. > > And run a `ls /usr/lib/systemd/system`. The harddisk is filled up with > a bunch of systemd stuff which I don't need and don't want to have. But > I am forced to have at least half of systemd on my harddisk, even if I > don't want to have systemd. > > Just a few concerns which not only belong to upstream. > > And, no. The software does not or at least should not ripen at the > users, at least not so much as it needs to with Poetterix. > > Heiko >
Re: [arch-general] When will LibreOffice 3.6 proposed ?
Spellcheck is currently broken in 3.6.0 afiak, so probably best to wait until the point release. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Andreas Radke wrote: > Am Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:54:14 +0200 > schrieb Jelle van der Waa : > > > On 10/08/12 21:15, fredbezies wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > > > I know, archlinux is really quick to package software, so I was > > > wondering when LibreOffice 3.6 will be proposed, at least on > > > testing ? > > > > > 3.6.0 won't go into our repos. It's only for early adopters and not > ready for production use. Maybe I'll package 3.6.1 for testing repo > once it's out. > > See http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOReleaseLifecycle.png > > -Andy >
