Commenting as a porter, the decision on default init system might affect
me something like this:
If GNU/Linux defaults to Upstart, it's likely in porters' interest to
get that working as well as possible so we can keep consistency with
Linux arches. I'm really grateful of Dimitri's work on this
Anthony Towns writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
I wonder if folks could clarify what status they expect secondary init
systems to have in Debian?
Thanks for bringing up this point so very clearly.
I agree entirely with the thrust of your argument. I would very
Steven Chamberlain writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
Policy may need to explain whether hard systemd requirement is
permissible, if it should be expressed in package dependencies, or what
it should do otherwise (e.g. refuse to start, fail with error message,
fall
Cory opensourcesoftwaredevelo...@gmail.com writes:
If Debian go's with systemd they need to use systemd 207 as its
supported in RHEL 7 so we know it's going to be supported for around 10
years also why does Debian have systemd 204 in it's repos?? systemd 207
is way better
Because it's the
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:09:52PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Ian Jackson
I think you have misunderstood. Or perhaps I hae misunderstood you.
The work that I'm saying needs to be done anyway is the work to
disentange the parts of systemd which are required by (say) GNOME from
the
]] Steve Langasek
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:09:52PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Ian Jackson
I think you have misunderstood. Or perhaps I hae misunderstood you.
The work that I'm saying needs to be done anyway is the work to
disentange the parts of systemd which are required
On 01/04/2014 12:07 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Cory opensourcesoftwaredevelo...@gmail.com writes:
If Debian go's with systemd they need to use systemd 207 as its
supported in RHEL 7 so we know it's going to be supported for around 10
years also why does Debian have systemd 204 in it's repos??
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 14:27 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:50:58AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it is hard for developers to
respect the TC’s decisions when we see disrespectful
On Thursday 02 January 2014 14:27:14 Steve Langasek wrote:
For several years the GNOME Team ignored section 9.7 of Policy, concerning
integration with the MIME handling system. They did this in favor of
implementing the related freedesktop.org on the grounds that the fd.o
standard is
Sune Vuorela writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
I've ignored the menu system as a part of the KDE Team. And I have a plan to
even more aggressively ignore it (as in, hide it from the menu).
Both things are ancient relics that should have been dealt with by removal
On 31 December 2013 12:32, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
I agree that maintaining a systemd unit plus an upstart job is better than
maintaining an init script. I just can't see any way through to a world
where these will both actually be maintained (the testing problem),
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
I wonder if folks could clarify what status they expect secondary init
systems to have in Debian?
My personal answer to this is that I truly don't know.
On one hand, we have four different init systems in Debian right now, plus
a fifth in
Le mardi 31 décembre 2013 à 19:01 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
It's not true that it's unrelated. In v205, logind hands off the cgroup
heirarchy creation to PID 1, precisely because it's preparing for the
anticipated future kernel requirement of a single cgroup writer.
This change would
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 05:50:59PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
and I think it'd be a shame if we ended up losing or demotivating a
good bunch of good developers again.
Pretty much every time the CTTE makes a ruling, someone is going to be
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 05:50:59PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
and I think it'd be a shame if we ended up losing or demotivating a
good bunch of good developers again.
Pretty much every time the CTTE
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 01:09:27PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Colin Watson writes (Re: CTTE and Developer Buy-in [Re: Bug#727708: init
system other points, and conclusion]):
Is there any useful way we could take a reasonably quick non-binding
straw poll of developers? Sort of an if we voted
Colin Watson writes (Re: CTTE and Developer Buy-in [Re: Bug#727708: init
system other points, and conclusion]):
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 01:09:27PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Obviously that would be embarrassing for us and substantially damage
our credibility. But I don't think it's at all
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
And, despite the fact that the decision has become very politicised
(to some extent along the lines of preexisting camps of strongly
disagreeing contributors), I think it is primarily a technical
decision.
The line of thought that you have been
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 12:37 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 05:50:59PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
and I think it'd be a shame if we ended up losing or demotivating a
good bunch of good developers again.
Pretty much every
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: CTTE and Developer Buy-in [Re: Bug#727708: init
system other points, and conclusion]):
I do. I know at least one person who expressed his intent to leave Debian
if Debian wasn't able to make the choice of systemd. So if one is ready to
resign, there will likely
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
Sometimes I also wonder if a GR might be a better way to deal with the
decision as this feels more and more like an political or opinion
decision rather then a technical decision to me as tech-ctte members
have found both upstart and systemd to be
(Long time listener, first time caller - so apologies if I'm doing this wrong.)
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
3.1. Ecosystem Reality Check
...
Therefore, I believe the burden of proof is on upstart to show that it is
a clearly superior init system
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
And, despite the fact that the decision has become very politicised (to
some extent along the lines of preexisting camps of strongly disagreeing
contributors), I think it is primarily a technical decision.
I think this is a remarkable
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: CTTE and Developer Buy-in [Re: Bug#727708:
init system other points, and conclusion]):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I don't think any of the TC are going to propose (b). Perhaps we
should put (b) on the TC ballot for form's sake; I
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Based on the responses to the recurring flamewars on debian-devel, I
think the majority of contributors are happy not to have to wrestle
with this decision and would prefer to leave it to us.
Agreed.
Perhaps we
should put (b) on the TC
Sjoerd Simons sjo...@debian.org writes:
While i don't have a good answer for your question, i did trigger me to
have a look at popcon to see what that told me in terms of popularity of
systemd vs. upstart.
Thank you!
Bdale
pgpPoSk59R79j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 02:39:15PM +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
While i don't have a good answer for your question, i did trigger me to
have a look at popcon to see what that told me in terms of popularity of
systemd vs. upstart. Unfortunately systemd can be pulled in quite easily
via
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it is hard for developers to
respect the TC’s decisions when we see disrespectful sentences like the
one above from some of its members.
I agree.
We are of course each entitled to hold opinions about such things,
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
And, despite the fact that the decision has become very politicised (to
some extent along the lines of preexisting camps of strongly disagreeing
contributors), I think it is primarily a technical
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
In addition to the popcon numbers referenced from Sjoerd, we have the
numbers from Michael's systemd survey in May 2013. The numbers there
were 35%/30%/33% for yes/dunno/no for systemd as default init when only
counting
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:50:58AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it is hard for developers to
respect the TC’s decisions when we see disrespectful sentences like the
one above from some of its members.
I agree.
Le jeudi 02 janvier 2014 à 14:27 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
For several years the GNOME Team ignored section 9.7 of Policy, concerning
integration with the MIME handling system. They did this in favor of
implementing the related freedesktop.org on the grounds that the fd.o
standard is
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:27:16AM -0008, cameron wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
inotify is used to notice changes to configuration files. This is
certainly helpful for users, but it isn't critical as initctl
reload-configuration works without it. We
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary
to switch any time soon.
intrigeri writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
The difference lies in who are the people who need to do this work
anyway, and who else may instead dedicate their time to other tasks,
lead by their own desires and needs.
I think that it is right
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:27:16AM -0008, cameron wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
inotify is used to notice changes to configuration files. This is
certainly helpful for users,
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Wednesday, January 01, 2014 08:47:13 Josh Triplett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31,
Josh Triplett writes (Re: Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
In other words, what you're saying is that not only [something
about NetworkManager]
It's fairly clear that NetworkManager [something something
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 09:37:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josh Triplett writes (Re: Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
In other words, what you're saying is that not only [something
about NetworkManager
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
I appreciate the explanation, and I'm familiar with the contents of the
decision. I simply see nothing there that should have motivated a
tech-ctte decision, rather than simply a couple of bug reports against
network-manager and an added
Hello.
I'm writing to you to request to do not use no systemd, nor upstart.
I can guess that you have very important reasons to discuss this
possibilities, but…
IMHO, systemd doesn't even fit to UNIX philosophy [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
Sorry if I'm wrong.
intrigeri writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
(Sorry if I am duplicating a point that was already made.
These threads are huge, and don't fit entirely into my memory.)
That's fine, of course.
Ian Jackson wrote (30 Dec 2013 18:58:37 GMT) :
Unless you are proposing
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
intrigeri writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
The difference lies in who are the people who need to do this work
anyway, and who else may instead dedicate their time to other tasks,
lead by their own desires
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:21:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
And if upstart wants to use parts of systemd, why shouldn't the upstart
maintainer do the work for this? Or they could fork logind which they
suggested before... This would also allow having a newer systemd in
Debian.
upstart
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
What about the cgroup management functionality that newer versions
of
logind require? Should the systemd maintainers also
]] Ian Jackson
I think you have misunderstood. Or perhaps I hae misunderstood you.
The work that I'm saying needs to be done anyway is the work to
disentange the parts of systemd which are required by (say) GNOME from
the parts which are only relevant for systemd as init.
This is work
Le mardi 31 décembre 2013 à 18:31 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
What about the cgroup management functionality that newer versions of
logind require? Should the systemd maintainers also reimplement
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Which brings me to the other point: you are not going to decide what
people want to spend their time on. If systemd is selected as the
default, the systemd maintainers are not going to ask Steve to fix their
upgrades problem for them. And if upstart is
First of all, thanks a lot for writing this mail. It expresses a lot of
my thoughts and feelings on the subject a lot more eloquently than I am
able to do myself. You're a wordsmith and a master of words. I am
not.
]] Russ Allbery
Occasionally, there are decisions with sweeping
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Personally, I wish the TC was a bit more careful with the «people»
angle of their rulings.
I'm personally very concerned about the developers whose decisions we
are overriding or mediating. But we probably don't convey this well
enough.
[...]
and I
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary
manpower is required to implement your decision.
I think the
]] Russ Allbery
First, thanks to both you and Ian for the quite comprehensive
write-ups.
If the package later changes the flags in some orthogonal way, it's
easy for the system to miss that change. This is something that,
under systemd, will probably require development of new tools to warn
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
* Red Hat adopted upstart but never did a wholescale conversion, and then
abandoned upstart in favor of systemd. Obviously, one should not put
too much weight on this; Red Hat is a commercial company that has a
wealth of reasons for its actions that
]] Ian Jackson
Tollef Fog Heen writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion):
Ian Jackson:
This is exacerbated by the fact that systemd's Debian maintainers are
(IMO) much too deferential to upstream.
That's because the bits of systemd you've asked to change isn't
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:05:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
By comparison, upstart is effectively used only by Ubuntu, [...]
Both of these statements are incorrect.
I'm sure that somewhere in the many vast threads that we've had over the
init system, someone pointed out to me that Google's
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
We seem to be at the point of the process where at least those of us who
did early investigation are stating conclusions. I think I have enough
information to state mine, so will attempt to do so here.
Thanks.
First
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
If this is not required by systemd, why is it done by sd_notify ?
It's not.
You obviously did not read the code. It is. Here is a G+ convo with
Lennart I had:
As a sender you only have to set SCM_CREDENTIALS
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
First, other choices besides systemd and upstart.
I agree with your comments here; it appears you've investigated OpenRC
in more detail than I have but I'm happy
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
The latest that I have seen on this porting effort is here:
http://blog.surgut.co.uk/2013/11/libnih-upstart-dependency-ported-to.html
I asked previously on this bug if someone had later news. Do you have
more information
]] cameron
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
If this is not required by systemd, why is it done by sd_notify ?
It's not.
You obviously did not read the code. It is. Here is a G+ convo with
Lennart I had:
As a sender you only have to set
This message contains some supplemental information to go with my primary
writeup, and some profound thanks for the people involved in this
investigation.
I apologize for the huge volume of mail, and I know it's going to take a
while to digest. I appreciate people's willingness to read all these
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
]] cameron
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no
wrote:
If this is not required by systemd, why is it done by sd_notify
?
It's not.
You obviously did not read the code. It is. Here is
Hi,
(Sorry if I am duplicating a point that was already made.
These threads are huge, and don't fit entirely into my memory.)
Ian Jackson wrote (30 Dec 2013 18:58:37 GMT) :
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion):
Rather, we're talking about whether
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:56:33AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Rather, we're talking about whether or not to swap out a core component
of an existing integrated ecosystem with a component that we like
better.
Unless you are proposing to make systemd mandatory for all Debian
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:44:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
* systemd provides really nice command-line tools for understanding the
state of the system and the relationships between the unit files. I
don't believe upstart has an equivalent of systemctl list-dependencies,
for example.
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 18:58 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Also, I get the impression me that the integration of much of this
functionality into the systemd source package has been done for
political rather than technical reasons. Indeed to the extent that
there is a problematically tight
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
From comments made by various GNOME upstream developers on this, I think
they are being suitably cautious about avoiding scope creep where the
systemd dependencies are concerned. So in what sense are the GNOME and
KDE requirements not already being
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:27:28AM -0008, cameron wrote:
systemd lists logind as non-reimplementable, and that was pretty
much proven when Ubuntu tried to reimplement it and ended up
reimplementing or pulling in a ton of systemd anyway.
All this proves is that Ubuntu developers have the good
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
My belief, and again I welcome concrete reasons why I'm not correct, is
that adopting upstart poses a similar risk for the Hurd port as adopting
systemd, and I care just as much about the Hurd port as kFreeBSD. And
while kFreeBSD
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
From comments made by various GNOME upstream developers on this, I think
they are being suitably cautious about avoiding scope creep where the
systemd dependencies are concerned. So in
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
My belief, and again I welcome concrete reasons why I'm not
correct, is
that adopting upstart poses a similar risk for the Hurd port as
adopting
systemd,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Please recall the context here: this whole aside started with an objection
to my contention that adopting upstart requires disassembly and redoing of
an integration that we would otherwise not have to
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
It does, however, have a number of missing features. Those I have in
mind are:
- ability to log daemon output to syslog
- multiple socket activation (systemd socket activation protocol)
- socket activation for IPv6 (and datagram
We seem to be at the point of the process where at least those of us who
did early investigation are stating conclusions. I think I have enough
information to state mine, so will attempt to do so here.
This is probably going to be rather long, as there were quite a few
factors that concerned me
I have reported on my impressions and experiences of both systemd and
upstart in my previous messagges.
I'd like to run through the remaining points I want to make. I'll
then summarise and set out my primary conclusion.
Firstly, unlike the systemd maintainers, I think portability to
non-Linux
Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org writes:
You then asked for these features to be carried as a patch in the Debian
systemd package, and both requests were rejected. I think this is what
you refer to when saying “the systemd Debian maintainers are much too
deferential to upstream”. The
77 matches
Mail list logo
