ll be heard.
So, this bug will continue to be open until the tech ctte decides, or
the systemd maintainers agree to be open{sysusers,tmpfiles} friendly,
whatever comes first. Until then, I'm also putting on hold any work on
these 2 packages.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
dpkg-divert is rarely known, yet even understood by the average
Debian users, so they wouldn't be able to even understand what happened
to their system. We should be able to find a much nicer way to implement
things.
I'm also strongly against a /bin/sysusers which both programs wou
On 1/30/20 8:18 PM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On 1/30/20 7:02 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This is normally solved if using pre-depends, which ensure that a
>> package is configured before using it (and not just unpacked).
>
> Having everything using sysusers have ver
reaking it.
That's exactly what made me think that using the original name was less
Debian wide work indeed. Though because of the binary name prefixed with
"systemd-" this is less elegant than standardizing on /bin/sysusers.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
tures,
> which doesn't seem like a least-astonishment situation to be in. However,
> Michael, or anyone else opposing this change: if you have anything to
> add to those, please do.
We don't need to do "Depends: systemd (>= 321)", we could have a virtual
package provided by both implementations.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 1/29/20 4:49 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 29 janvier 2020, 16.07:21 h CET Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> This reasoning can make sense, if we agree that we should use something
>> else than /bin/systemd-sysusers and standardize on something else like
versa" possibility!!! :)
> following past examples, I
> believe a package set to predepend on systemd-sysusers should be able
> to call /bin/systemd-sysusers — And a package set to predepend on
> open-sysusers can do likewise.
This feels reasonable to me. Even better if this goes into t
On 1/29/20 1:50 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> echo 'u radvd - "radvd daemon"' | \
>>systemd-sysusers --replace=/usr/lib/sysusers.d/radvd.conf
>
> Does opensysusers support this use case?
Yes it does.
>
On 1/29/20 11:34 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This is exactly what should be avoided. It's perfectly fine to try to
>> use opensysusers with systemd if one wants. In fact, that's exactly the
>> best way we could do to
ally,
Debian is doomed.
I am not buying into the "we will have wrong bug reports" argument. We
constantly get many types of wrong reports in the BTS. We just shall do
sensible bug triaging in a correct way, that's it.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Note that this bug also concerns systemd-tmpfiles, the very exact
same way, though I believe one single bug is enough to address both
cases which are similar.
On 1/25/20 5:05 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + wontfix
>
> Hi Thomas
>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:29:29 +0100 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Package: systemd
>> Version: 244-3
>> Severity: important
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I
On 06/14/2015 05:10 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Therefore, I'm tempted to raise this to the technical committee
>> (putting their list as Cc). Does anyone see a reason why I am
>> mistaking here?
>
> Does a patch exist
On 06/13/2015 10:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I've been using xz compression for a long time, but I see a big defect
>> which is today pushing me to turn it off for the .orig.tar file. The
>> issue is that depending
Thanks Ian, this is exactly what I think as well, and you expressed it a
way better than I would have.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53691267
On 05/06/2014 05:11 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't believe that he is intentionnally uncooperative but he makes it
> difficult to cooperate with him unless you agree with him on everything.
I don't think this has to do with agreeing with him or not.
I believe he is unfriendly with unfriendl
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, and I think it was wrong that the bug was closed by an upload to
> experimental instead of to unstable when there was nothing
> experimental about it.
Daniel is just being extra careful, using experimental a bit more these
days, to avoid the more discontentment (I don
s a nice person, which is trying to do all of the above, and
do what is technically right. It'd be nice if the persons interacting
with him also tried to act in this way.
For me, the next course of action is:
- Close this bug
- Let Steve and Daniel work out reintroduction of Upstart in h
ven needed. Probably installing
OpenRC first, then the other sysvinit packages would work as well.
There's nothing more to it: it just works (tm)! :)
Hoping that the status update and our porting efforts are appreciated,
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: My experience with Hurd was ok-ish, thou
the behavior of a
daemon doing some output to stderr. However, I believe it'd be really
trivial to do in the command= statement of a runscript. Something like:
command="foo >/var/log/foo.log 2>&1"
or using the command_arg directive should be enough (I haven&#x
Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:42:40 +0200, Russ Allbery
> Hopefully, logind will continue to work without systemd and people
> will volunteer to maintain the necessary packaging for that
> configuration, and none of this will be a problem.
I really wish you were right Russ. Because that's not what upstream
ream maintainers that the corner case where
this happens doesn't happen in real life, so that bug can be ignored.
This has already been stated many times, and I'm sure you've heard about
it. I thought we were not having the debate this way. It seems you love
flame wars and can't
ipts have some many problems which I can't
even lest in this mail, and we all agree about that), then the package
maintainer *must* provide support for systemd (or upstart, if we choose
that as default).
IMO, the above would be the best way forward for Debian if we want to
continue to support
On 01/04/2014 01:42 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#727708: additional OpenRC information: OpenRC now
> in Debian Experimental!"):
>> OpenRC is now in Debian experimental! \o/
>
> Good, thanks.
>
>> I of course welcome anyone to try
find, which was fairly minimal.
>
> Thomas Goirand sent me considerably more information, including some
> details about OpenRC project goals that corrects information in my
> original writeup. With his permission, I'm including that here for the
> benefit of everyone e
On 12/02/2013 09:40 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> As discussed in the most recent CTTE meeting, we expect all of the
> position statements to be finalized no later than this week. I believe
> that only the OpenRC statement is not yet finalized.
Hi Don,
That's not correct, I have stated it was done (
> Thanks,
> Regards,
Hi,
I have the go-ahead from OpenRC upstream (eg: Patrick Lauer) so please
consider the OpenRC page as finalized as well.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Sorry for the delay. As I wrote previously, I had personal and
professional events which delayed this
it shouldn't be hard to do, and
they told me they will work on it. I unfortunately (and of course, I'd
say) can't upload to Debian until this is fixed, though it's in
collab-maint for those who want to try.
I warmly welcome Hurd folks to try porting it too.
Thomas Goi
decides, OpenRC, in my opinion, makes sense! :)
I also would like to wish good luck to the tech-ctte. Whatever you will
decide, I will support it. I wouldn't like to be in your seats, and I
hope everyone will also support your final decision.
Hoping that the work on OpenRC will be useful
Oh, also, it seems that some people seem to believe that it may be
possible to run with more than one hypervisor *at the same time* with
nova. Tollef Fog Heen wrote that. Well, it would be a nice feature, but
no, it's not possible with Nova, AFAIK.
Could we avoid this? It doesn't help the discussi
On 04/18/2013 02:52 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Thomas Goirand
>
> (Cc-ing you, since I don't know if you're subscribed. Apologies for the
> extra copy if you are.)
I am not subscribed indeed, thanks.
>> You guys are writing this as if it was impossible to swit
On 04/17/2013 02:49 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> For testing, I would understand. But for going on production, it doesn't
>> make sense to install things for more than one hypervisor in a single
>> system.
>
> I think it does: I might be interested in running less trusted code in
> KVM, since it
On 04/16/2013 03:58 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 13182 March 1977, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> Note that the upstream changelog issue was quickly solved (and I agreed
>> with the FTP masters view on it), though remains the "problem" of having
>> too many bina
On 04/15/2013 11:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If you and your collaborators think the conversation with ftpmaster is
> essentially over, and want to escalate to the TC
I hope it's not, and that the TC thing can be avoided.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Mon Apr 15 2013 05:13:40 AM PDT, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> On 15.04.2013 12:49, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > The following DDs have already agreed with my view on the mater:
> [...]
> > - Mehdi Abaakouk
>
> I may be missing something here, but Mehdi doesn't appe
Hi,
I have no words to express how stupid I feel right now.
The effect of my mail is the exact opposite of what I wanted to achieve.
What I wanted to do was reaching the tech committee *members* only (and
not the public list) and Lucas, then ask how I could manage the
emotional situation. Which
On 04/15/2013 08:49 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> As a consequence, I am questioning the motivation behind all this, and
>
> This is the part where you cross the line that you should not have
> crossed.
Yeah, publicly, I shouldn't have. Yet, I was trying to ask friends for
help, because I could f
On 04/15/2013 08:50 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But in that case, couldn't you just use an unofficial repo in the
> meantime, or point to a VCS?
This has already been done.
>> To all of you: what advice can you give to escalate this issue in the
>> best way possible?
>
> Avoiding ad hominem atta
On 04/15/2013 08:36 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would prefer it
> if you stopped throwing around public accusations of ill will unless
Hi,
This is a *mistake* which I just did. I was intending to send a mail to
the ctte memebers, and not to the list. I feel truly sorry for that.
I was in fact, tr
e this issue in the
best way possible?
Cheers (from my hotel room in Portland),
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Congrats to Lucas. I'm truly satisfied you are our new DPL, and I
feel sorry that the first interaction I have with you as DPL is for
bringing this kind of shitty problem.
--
To UNSUB
39 matches
Mail list logo
