Hi,
I would really appreciate if you quote your reply properly:
It was not Andreas Metzler who sent the below:
> On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 18:25 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > On 2022-09-27 Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > [...]
On Wed, 2022-09-28 at 11:55 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >
> > > This
On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 18:25 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2022-09-27 Zack Weinberg wrote:
> [...]
> > What I am asking for is a schedule change: specifically, that the
> > merged /usr transition not be allowed to proceed past the status
> > quo as of two weeks ago (i.e. *before*
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 12:23 -0800, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I think we have a fairly good picture of the costs that would be
> > incurred from using alternatives:
>
> Plus in the case of opentmpfiles; a pile of security issues: systemd-
> tmpfiles addresses a number of
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 12:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> It's not like having two competing implementations causes much
> harm here.we technically _can_ allow any /bin/systemd-* to be
> provided by another implementation, that we should (actually, I think
> we should clearly _not_).
Of course
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 11:01 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> Strikes me as there is a possible solution, though: have opensysusers
> dpkg-divert it and put a shell script in its place that checks which
> init system is running, and exec's the right sysusers based on
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 11:01 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> Strikes me as there is a possible solution, though: have opensysusers
> dpkg-divert it and put a shell script in its place that checks which
> init system is running, and exec's the right sysusers based on that.
It is as simple
On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 21:58 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> If we keep merged-/usr as default then we can /recommend/ people to
> install usrmerge to switch to merged-/usr; reducing the difference
> between newly-installed and existing setups is a good idea IMHO. I
> think I filed a report
On Sun, 2018-12-02 at 21:04 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> The next debhelper change might choose to give / instead of /usr as a
> target directory by default, moving hundreds of megabytes from /usr to /
> over time.
This solution was proposed by GNU/Hurd several years ago, and was scrapped due
to
Hello,
Looking at the IRC log
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/tree/meetings/20141204/debian-ctte.2014-12-04-18.00.log.txt
lines 197 to 280 reveals the plan.
Conclusion: quoting vorlon Steve Langasek: we recommend/support
systemd being the default init system for
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init systems.
More detailed:
1) Fix
One claim is changed, see below.
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hello,
In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:19 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
please!
You are of course free to do that. This discussion is about what Debian
should do, however
Hello,
In the (last) hope that the CTTE will bring this issue on the agenda
next meeting on December 4. Additional information below and a short
summary.
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
(another partial? solution
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
2) In case you missed doing the above, you get a debconf prompt when
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
Again: aborting the dist-upgrade in the debconf of one
package may leave the system
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
Does that work,
anyway (i.e. does installing systemd and immediately
reverting to sysvinit leave the system net unchanged,
modulo the dependencies it pulls in (see planet post))?
I've
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:46 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
about the apt pinning solution
On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 13:55 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
Do people use the usb stick/cd/dvd etc for upgrades to jessie, i.e. the
debian installer. Or do they only use apt/aptitude/etc?
I don't know that we can speak in absolutes, but I've
Hello,
Below is a proposal for a (partial) solution for the upgrade problem of
keeping the installed init system:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765803
This has been discussed privately among selected users/DM/DDs and since
the deadline for the ctte is December 4, it has to be
On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 03:10 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
I would like to propose a different one.
[...]
So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
transition / shim package, however it would not
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 13:51 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Hi,
I would like to see an end to open questions on systemd in Jessie.
So, given that the GR is over and no technical proposals for not
switching init systems on upgrade to Jessie have been made, is it
possible to draw a
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: Important
When upgrading an old system installing certain packages, like
network-manager and gdm3 systemd-sysv is installed changing the init
system. These packages depend on libpam-systemd, which depends on
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim. If systemd-shim is not
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 08:32 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 22/05/14 at 10:14 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:56:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
We have had some discussion about this. No-one seems to have objected
to the suggestion that the DPL, rather than the TC
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140212 19:00]:
Packages should normally support the default Linux init system. There
I would drop the word Linux here - Packages should support our
default init systems.
If you do that then you have killed all non-linux architectures, is
that
On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.):
Don't you mean drop GNOME, KDE and others? It's not only GNOME that
plans to depend on logind...
logind is a red herring because AIUI we already have a technical
Debian is digging their own grave with respect to Free Software (not
FOSS or FOS), why don't you align with M$soft, Apple or especially
RedHat :( Debian will just be a memory in a few years, RedHat will be
the solution for everybody (TM).
Please take this sort of thing to some other
Hi,
Following this bug report for several months now this is really becoming
a farce. Who is in charge calling for votes, and why don't you have a
closed voting procedure?
Of course the people voting later has a advantage against the others.
Have you ever heard of game theory? This is like
To CTTE,
In the wait for your decision next week, many of us assume that you take
into consideration the many misleading and false statements that have
been written about about sysvinit + openrc/insserv.
Additionally, consider this, please:
Adopting systemd (and gnome, dbus-kdbus, wayland, etc
I think you made a c-p typo, see below:
That will leave us voting on (most likely):
Dsystemd default in jessie, say nothing about multiple inits
DM systemd default in jessie, support multiple inits
Usystemd default in jessie, say nothing about multiple inits
Who wrote the parts of sysvinit+openrc and sysvinit+insserv? Maybe that
person should modify some of the faulty information for these cases.
Some points:
sysvinit+insserv/openrc:
D-Bus interfaces: Why are they needed, nothing of this is defined by
POSIX? And dbus is already heavily depending on
for GNU Hurd
Author: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com
Forwarded: no
Last-Update: 2014-01-06
Index: openrc-0.12.4+20131230/etc/rc.conf.GNU
===
--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.0 +
...
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
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 19:44 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 19/01/14 19:37, Svante Signell wrote:
I tried to reopen bug #727708 but failed
Was that a typo? That's the bug number of the Debian tech-ctte bug.
Yes, bug number is 724731, sorry.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte
32 matches
Mail list logo
