On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 06:58:02PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2012 6:32 PM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
> > Will this be an issue for him if he switches to full systemd as it has
> > removed inittab
>
> Yes, inittab is ignored. It would be trivial to add support for it via a
> generator
On Aug 31, 2012 7:47 PM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
> Isn't getting rid of the compat layer going to be more work for some
> (not too much to ask) than those who are grumbling simply commenting out
> the DAEMONS line?
Ah, got it. There is slightly more to it than that. The way it is done now
causes
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> > > People are grumbling about this compatibility layer, and I might
>> > > change/remove it at some point. The reason I still have not ripped it
>> > > out is that I like the fact that your system will "just work" as
>> > > before if you a
> > > People are grumbling about this compatibility layer, and I might
> > > change/remove it at some point. The reason I still have not ripped it
> > > out is that I like the fact that your system will "just work" as
> > > before if you add init=/bin/systemd to the kernel command line.
> > > Witho
On Aug 31, 2012 6:32 PM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> > > > And this is yet another example how initscripts are broken.
> > > > I had a friend whose GDM was not coming up because it
> > > > was starting too fast after dbus. As a las
On Aug 31, 2012 6:31 PM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
>
> > People are grumbling about this compatibility layer, and I might
> > change/remove it at some point. The reason I still have not ripped it
> > out is that I like the fact that your system will "just work" as
> > before if you add init=/bin/sys
> > On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> > > And this is yet another example how initscripts are broken.
> > > I had a friend whose GDM was not coming up because it
> > > was starting too fast after dbus. As a last resort we rearranged
> > > the DAEMONS and moved gdm as
> People are grumbling about this compatibility layer, and I might
> change/remove it at some point. The reason I still have not ripped it
> out is that I like the fact that your system will "just work" as
> before if you add init=/bin/systemd to the kernel command line.
> Without the compatibility
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 20:45 +0530, gt wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 03:30:43PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> > > And this is yet another example how initscripts are broken.
> > > I had a friend whose GDM was not coming up because it
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 03:30:43PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> > And this is yet another example how initscripts are broken.
> > I had a friend whose GDM was not coming up because it
> > was starting too fast after dbus. As a last reso
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> >> While the cause has been explained I think we are missing the Why or is
> >> it How.
> >>
> >> If dbus was out of order how come it worked under initscripts?
> >
> > I have honestly no idea why the setup used to work (it never should
>> While the cause has been explained I think we are missing the Why or is
>> it How.
>>
>> If dbus was out of order how come it worked under initscripts?
>
> I have honestly no idea why the setup used to work (it never should
> have), and what made it stop working (nothing should have changed).
>
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> While the cause has been explained I think we are missing the Why or is
> it How.
>
> If dbus was out of order how come it worked under initscripts?
I have honestly no idea why the setup used to work (it never should
have), and what made i
On 31/08/12 20:44, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>> IIUC the OP got issues regarding to networkmanager, while not switching
>>> to systemd.
>>
>> For the people not reading the forums: it seems the problem was with
>> the order of daemons in rc.conf, and should be unrelated to systemd.
>> For people not
> > IIUC the OP got issues regarding to networkmanager, while not switching
> > to systemd.
>
> For the people not reading the forums: it seems the problem was with
> the order of daemons in rc.conf, and should be unrelated to systemd.
> For people not using systemd, this change should really no
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 11:34 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
> > IIUC the OP got issues regarding to networkmanager, while not switching
> > to systemd.
>
> For the people not reading the forums: it seems the problem was with
> the order of dae
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> IIUC the OP got issues regarding to networkmanager, while not switching
> to systemd.
For the people not reading the forums: it seems the problem was with
the order of daemons in rc.conf, and should be unrelated to systemd.
For people not us
Thank you Tom :)
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 11:14 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> If you do not wish to switch to systemd yet, then no action
> is required. See [0] for some details.
I'm not switching yet. First I'll test it in VBox, but at the moment I
don't have time to do it, I need a stable Arch Li
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> I don't understand "Eliminate the daemons one by one from rc.conf. Start
> with dbus, which systemd handles very well without any action from you
> at all". How can I upgrade, but keep a running system?
I believe that post was making the ass
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 09:30 +0200, Mathieu R. wrote:
> 2012/8/31 Matthew Monaco :
> > On 08/30/2012 07:30 PM, baker.stephe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On August 31, 2012 02:06:56 AM Mathieu R. wrote:
> >>> Last update (10 minutes ago) asked me if y want switch from libsystemd
> >>> to core/systemd. I
2012/8/31 Matthew Monaco :
> On 08/30/2012 07:30 PM, baker.stephe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On August 31, 2012 02:06:56 AM Mathieu R. wrote:
>>> Last update (10 minutes ago) asked me if y want switch from libsystemd
>>> to core/systemd. I agreed, and on next reboot, networkmanager was not
>>> started
On 08/30/2012 07:30 PM, baker.stephe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On August 31, 2012 02:06:56 AM Mathieu R. wrote:
>> Last update (10 minutes ago) asked me if y want switch from libsystemd
>> to core/systemd. I agreed, and on next reboot, networkmanager was not
>> started automaticly from rc.conf. it work
On August 31, 2012 02:06:56 AM Mathieu R. wrote:
> Last update (10 minutes ago) asked me if y want switch from libsystemd
> to core/systemd. I agreed, and on next reboot, networkmanager was not
> started automaticly from rc.conf. it work well if y start it by hand
> (/etc/rc.d/networkmanager start)
23 matches
Mail list logo
