On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:23:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>...
> [non-essential-init] In order to allow Debian users and developers
> to easily design, test and deploy alternative init systems both now
> and in the future, no init system in Debian should be provided via an
> Essential:yes pa
Uoti Urpala writes:
> I consider the effect on the init system decision process so far to
> already be an example of actual negative effects.
Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't agree
with you, and I think it's unlikely either of us are going to change each
other's
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 17:00 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > I think the divergence has gone too far in things like non-Linux ports.
> > They have had an overall negative effect on people working on Linux
> > within Debian and people creating derivatives.
>
> I have to take ex
(Thorsten: your message went to debian-ctte@lists when it should have
gone to the bug report. Can you try to make whatever cause that not
do that again please ?
Philipp: therefore, your message also went to the list directly and
not via the bug.)
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#72770
Anthony Towns dixit:
> [default-init] Having examined the features and bugs of the various
>init systems packaged for Debian, the default init system for jessie
>for Linux architectures shall be {OpenRC | systemd | upstart |
Please do not forget sysv-rc here.
>determined by a GR}.
> [systemd-
On 20 January 2014 14:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> For my part I think this is generally a good idea, but I have the
>> impression that at least Russ would be strongly opposed to this because
>> it's too pres
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: On diversity"):
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are
> > required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other
> > t
]] Steve Langasek
> GNOME certainly uses these interfaces already. Whether they should be
> considered a "dependency" or not is probably something that should be left
> to the maintainers' discretion. But I think they should certainly be
> handled the same way as logind, generally - with a depe
Have you think in having a Systemd team in Debian taking care of
providing support for its packages? That way, people should be able to
run it in some weeks and, as soon as existing init.d files are not
dropped, people won't lose support for that (apart of the cases like
GNOME that needs systemd ru
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:51:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Honestly, I was a bit surprised that Steve thinks the above's a good
> idea, given I wrote it from the (my) perspective of wanting to support
> multiple init systems within Debian; and my understanding is his
> opinion is that that's
Anthony Towns writes:
> To me that seems like it would be a bad outcome (even if we adopted
> upstart everywhere and abandoned sysvrc, systemd and openrc entirely; it
> would still make it unduly difficult to experiment with the next
> next-generation init systems in a Debian environment). I'd ex
On 20 January 2014 14:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>> I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are
>>> required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other
>>> than systemd p
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are
>> required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other
>> than systemd probably, and don't seem very hard to either do or
>>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> d) [are packages likely to start depending on
> localed/hostnamed/timedated/machined/??? in the same way as logind
> such that it would need to be available outside systemd for upstart to
> be a useful init?]
GNOME certainly uses t
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 07:23:17PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>...
> I also have to insist that GNOME 3.10+ *needs* a working logind even for
> basic functionality,
>...
Can you elaborate on where exactly upstream GNOME 3.10 has a hard
dependency on logind, and no alternative ConsoleKit codep
On 19/01/14 18:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I also have to insist that GNOME 3.10+ *needs* a working logind even for
> basic functionality, and that starting with v205, logind *needs* systemd
> as PID 1.
Sorry if this has been already answered, but if that's the opinion of
GNOME maintainers, isn'
Le lundi 20 janvier 2014 à 01:17 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> c) logind or an equivalent service implementing the freedesktop.org
> systemd/logind api should be available under all supported init
> systems and architectures in Debian. It should be provided via a
> virtual package "fdo-logind"
On 17 January 2014 03:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What is Debian ? In one respect, Debian is an operating system. And
> of course in another respect Debian is a community.
> * Debian is a forum for cooperation and technical development.
> * Debian, as a piece of software, tries to be all things to
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:08 +0100, Ihar Filipau wrote:
> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Even the upstart proponents do not seem to have significant arguments
> > about upstart having better functionality, and there don't seem to be
> > all that many people who would have a reasonably informed opinion that
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The "universal operating system" phrase is a slogan.
> Sure it is, but that slogan actually stands for some important
> principles in the open source world... like not to "force" stuff upon
> users... and
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:08:51PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The "universal operating system"
> > phrase is a slogan.
> Sure it is, but that slogan actually stands for some important
> principles in the open source world... li
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The "universal operating system"
> phrase is a slogan.
Sure it is, but that slogan actually stands for some important
principles in the open source world... like not to "force" stuff upon
users... and allowing many different things to happily
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes ("Bug#727708: On diversity"):
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:13 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Just because you don’t understand that sentence doesn’t mean you can use
> > it to justify whatever convoluted position of yours.
> I wonder w
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 16:13 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Just because you don’t understand that sentence doesn’t mean you can use
> it to justify whatever convoluted position of yours.
I wonder who really doesn't understand here...
> An operating system is universal if it can be used for all p
Le vendredi 17 janvier 2014 à 08:47 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Besides what Russ said: Debian isn’t about Linux.
> Debian is the universal operating system.
Just because you don’t understand that sentence doesn’t mean you can use
it to justify whatever convoluted position of yours.
An ope
Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Even the upstart proponents do not seem to have significant arguments
> about upstart having better functionality, and there don't seem to be
> all that many people who would have a reasonably informed opinion that
> upstart would be technically better even for just their parti
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:45, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 17:52 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > * Debian is a forum for cooperation and technical development.
>
> > * Debian, as a piece of software, tries to be all things to all
> > people (within reason).
>
> > This flexibility a
Uoti Urpala dixit:
>They have had an overall negative effect on people working on Linux
>within Debian and people creating derivatives.
Besides what Russ said: Debian isn’t about Linux.
Debian is the universal operating system.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
18:47⎜ well channels… you see, I see everything
Uoti Urpala writes:
> I think the divergence has gone too far in things like non-Linux ports.
> They have had an overall negative effect on people working on Linux
> within Debian and people creating derivatives.
I have to take exception to this. There has been a great deal of
*concern* from pe
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 17:52 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Debian is a forum for cooperation and technical development.
> * Debian, as a piece of software, tries to be all things to all
> people (within reason).
> This flexibility and tolerance for divergence has made Debian an
> extremely attra
Ian Jackson writes ("On diversity"):
> If you think that the difference between upstart and systemd, or
> between either of those and systemd, is not important, then perhaps
^^^
Should read sysvinit. Bah, etc.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-
What is Debian ? In one respect, Debian is an operating system. And
of course in another respect Debian is a community.
But there are two other aspects of Debian's nature that have been very
important for our success:
* Debian is a forum for cooperation and technical development.
Specificall
32 matches
Mail list logo
