On Sep 01, Colin Watson wrote:
> > If anybody really cares then I suggest that they add support for xzdec
> > to debootstrap.
> debootstrap has supported data.tar.xz since 2010. The thing that's
> relevant here, which is outside our control, is whether the non-Debian
> systems from which one mi
On Sep 01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I guess
> it would make sense to decide if people still care about bootstrapping
> from other systems where xz-utils might not be available. I think a
Not at all.
If anybody really cares then I suggest
On Aug 20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think we need a reputation system here.
>
> Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like
>
>number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months
>---
>number of ACCEPT or REJECT
On Aug 17, Marc Haber wrote:
> Please. The attitute of requiring Debian maintainers to modify
> upstream software instead of having simple two-line extension to an
> init script is really unfriendly. Why do only systemd friends keep
> recommending this?
Maybe because the others do not care enough
On Aug 17, Marc Haber wrote:
> Does Debian no longer care about easy updates, or have we accepted
> that updating to jessie will be a nightmare anyway and recommend
> reinstallation instead?
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
> Quite a number of packages also refrain from starting the
On Aug 17, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
> 2) instead of doing Exec=ntopng, Exec a script that does the mangling
> and then execs ntopng.
If you cannot improve the software enough then this is the best choice.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Aug 16, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Because you're a Debian Developer and might want to upload a package to
> the archive without downloading the uploaded tarball which substantially
> duplicates what you have in your source tree? Or you're collaborating
> with someone and need to use a repacked ta
On Aug 15, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The alternative is handwaving and ignoring the fact that your package
> repository is not a complete representation of your package as it exists in
> the archive.
It is not obvious why this would be a problem.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digita
On Aug 15, Andrew Kelley wrote:
> > > - shall we standardize the "pristine-tar" branch?
> > Shall we kill pristine-tar instead, since it is mostly a waste of space
> > for everybody without an md5 fetish?
> Can you explain what you mean by this, for someone who is relatively new to
> packaging? W
On Aug 15, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - we can more easily share our git repositories with upstreams
> and downstreams
Did they ask for this?
> - how do we tag the upstream releases?
> - upstream/
Some of my packages just use the real upstream git tree as their
upstream branch, so the upstrea
On Aug 08, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Got bored. Made this: http://www.halon.org.uk/simplechooser/
Great work, thank you. I hope that it can be part of the solution.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Aug 08, Joey Hess wrote:
> I recently spent some time installing community computer labs in rural
> Brazil. Internet bandwidth was nearly nonexistant[1], so if you were
I am sure that we could have a great competition for finding potential
users with even crappier connectivity and even more o
On Aug 08, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> IMHO the best idea at this point would be to toss out libav, and rebuild
> the rdeps with ffmpeg. Now, before it's too late for jessie.
Agreed. The interested parties should really raise this with the CTTE
ASAP.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: D
On Aug 06, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> I first heard of them when they proposed a talk for DebConf, but they
> have never tried to contact me, which seemed a bit strange to me. What
> I don't understand about this project is the use of Python here: isn't
> really suitable for this? I was hesitating t
On Aug 05, Andrew Kelley wrote:
> What do you expect me to do? It would be very easy to just bundle all
> node_modules with the package but that is against Debian guidelines. Each
> dependency must track upstream. So that's exactly what we're doing and
> we're getting flak for it.
>
> It seems t
On Aug 05, Charles Plessy wrote:
> At this point, why not deciding that after all CC-BY-SA 2.0 is accaptable for
> Debian. Sorry for repeating myself, but there is not first-hand explanation
> of
> what is wrong with this license. I think that pointers to personal pages or
This goes back to th
On Aug 01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I personally don't have enough information to know why libav was chosen
> instead of FFmpeg, and the discussion on debian-devel so far has mostly
> come from FFmpeg advocates. So there's probably another side to the story
> that hasn't been stated here yet.
Proba
On Jul 30, Andreas Tille wrote:
> BTW, I assumed "worlds most popular non-Oracle database" would be
> postgresql. In other words: I do not think that advertising clauses in
> the subject do any good and do not sound very serious to me.
Agreed...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digi
On Jul 29, "\"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)\"" wrote:
> > This is why the new ffmpeg will use different symbols. Again, read
> > the first message.
> according to the first message, this is *not* true.
It is:
- To avoid potential problems when a program is linked against
FFmpeg libr
On Jul 29, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> security maintenance burden. Nonetheless, libav10 transition is still
> not complete in utopic today. I haven't checked, but now abi
> compatible/incompatible the two stacks are? cause it would be a pain
They really are not, this was explained in detail in
On Jul 28, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> Personally I don't feel like dropping libav in favor of ffmpeg now at
> this stage. It's too late for Jessie.
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
Personally I feel that we have inf
On Jul 28, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Moreover, I am curious why I haven't seen you working on libavcodec
> bugs in Debian before, and why do you believe you can do a better job
> with the ffmpeg package currently on NEW?
Why should he work on libavcodec when he (along with many other people)
wan
On Jul 26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Not mentioned there is another problem, namely that LSB mandates
> particular exit codes for particular conditions in init scripts, and set
> -e will not produce the correct exit codes.
What a great argument in favour of systemd... :-)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature
On Jul 25, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Looks like I got a full history. Can you elaborate where it failed in your
> case.
Everything that I tried either failed to create the proper structure of
merges from upstream to debian or just failed to import some of the
releases.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.
This script shows how to import in git the complete history of a Debian
package. It creates a structure of a properly merged upstream tree and
Debian changes.
http://www.linux.it/~md/software/import-inn2.sh
It may not be pretty and is slightly DWIM, but it worked for all of my
packages (some o
On Jul 24, Clint Byrum wrote:
> http://healthcare.zibb.com/trademark/adderall/29494603
>
> I wonder if this needs a new name. While Adderall is a registered
> trademark in pharmaceuticals only, that makes me wonder if another
> pharmaceutical company could use Adderall in their normal business.
This package provides a dummy libsystemd-daemon-dev binary package on
kfreebsd-* and hurd-* systems.
The purpose of this package is to allow other packages to
unconditionally build-depend depend on libsystemd-daemon-dev, removing the
need for ifdefs and configure-time checks for the library.
Al
On Jul 22, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> So I would presume that for many or most Debian systems, systemd is
> now required, and no other /sbin/init providers will work. I'm
> unclear whether this was a deliberate policy decision or an unintended
> consequence of various package requirements.
It is a c
On Jul 15, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
> If libressl is supposed to be the binary compatible replacement for openssl,
> the experience of these BLAS libraries might be helpful.
It is not.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jul 12, Toni Mueller wrote:
> * Package name: libressl
I am highly doubtful at best.
What are your plans exactly?
Would it have the same SONAME of openssl and conflict+provide it?
Would it be a totally different library which packages would
build-depend on?
Which packages are supposed to
On Jul 09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's looking like jquery >= 1.10 isn't compatible with <=1.9, and it's a
> problem for packaging OpenStack horizon (ie: the web UI for OpenStack).
> As we're close to the freeze, I don't think the release team would love
> to have such high profile transition.
I
On Jul 09, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> I think that it would be valuable for our users to keep the
> non-default init system working on Jessie for those who do neither
> intend nor need to switch to systemd.
I suggest less thinking and more coding then, because an updated
systemd-shim still has not
On Jul 07, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Would you call them “legitimate” or not?
I would call them "a future problem" since the world is moving to using
/usr/bin/ for everything and I expect that we will follow as well in
a couple of releases.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signat
On Jul 04, The Wanderer wrote:
> This part is precisely what I'm objecting to. I don't consider being
> expected to reboot *in order to maintain existing functionality* after
> an upgrade to be reasonable.
Tough luck for you then, I fear that this is a perception issue.
> At the very least, in t
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid
> replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent.
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users,
since only a few people care so much about
On Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
> > And which principles would be that, exactly?
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract
> Specifically, we won't hide problems and Debian will remain 100% free.
We would first need to acknow
On Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to
> carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance.
If manpower is a problem for them then I expect that they would keep at
least the handful of critically important extensions, or they wo
On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in
> public, please?
+1
I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next
release will not be useless for my customers (hence forcing me to
install/migrate hundr
On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
And which principles would be that, exactly?
> If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute
> software, please do speak up about it.
I suggest mimicking distributions that
On Jun 26, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic
> reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make
> false statements is suitable for main - but it's wrong to claim that these
> works are undistributable.
Reali
On Jun 26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Yes, I fully agree. But _please_ also realise that there are people,
> a non-neglibile number of them, for whom these frameworks are not an
> improvement, and who wish to be not forced to use them.
A few people said this about udev as well. Now they use udev.
On Jun 26, Wookey wrote:
> Can it be uploaded please? As has been observed, there is a reasonable
> number of people who would like an easy way to control explicitly
> when/if they change to systemd for pid 1. Having to get it from a
apt-get install equivs
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Descrip
On Jun 26, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd-sysv+upstart+openrc&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2014-01-01&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1
>
> Unfair - because it is in the most cases not on free will.
On Jun 25, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I used the word "Insidious" as I would have use "Stealth", because it's
> happening slowly, without us noticing, that everything in Debian is
> being locked with systemd. Soon, we'll have no choice.
This is why you should stop fighting: systemd has won.
http://
On Jun 19, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>inn2
I do not expect that anybody will reimplement OVDB with a different
backend.
The database can be rebuilt on upgrades (even if this is a major
annoyance on large servers), so if supporting the AGPL requirements is
too much complex then I can just disable
On May 11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
> unsolvable, but messy, and I do not hav
On May 05, Cameron Norman wrote:
> Example one: someone does not need logind, but removing it would remove
> their init system.
So do not try to do it.
> Example two: someone needs logind, but they do not need binfmt, nspawn, or
> networkd. Removing any of those would remove the init system, the
On May 04, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> packages. I know our systems have no functional use for systemd-logind
> and yet lots seems to depend on it but it is less clear what depends on
> which parts and so why each of the many packages do so. Whilst avoiding
If something depends on it then it means th
On Apr 20, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> I wonder if this might result in an alternate SSL/TLS library we could
> use in Debian?
Let's see next year how much the OpenBSD thing will be:
- portable
- interoperable
- gaining new features
They are removing things like FIPS support which are vital for
On Mar 30, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> See above: I'm unsure Debian Developers have yet a clear view of what
> should / must be supported, and what's going to happen in this regard.
> At least, it's not clear to me.
I believe that it is pretty much obvious myself:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.p
On Mar 31, Brian May wrote:
> On the other hand, getting back on topic, cacert.org offers you
> certificates free, and for any purpose, which is why it is much better then
> any of the other free alternatives (I only know one free alternative).
And they are about as useful as self-signed ones, as
I suggest that anybody who wants to partecipate to this debate should
clarify if their goal is:
- choosing appropriate defaults for the general population of our users
- taking a stand against the PKI system
Anyway, I strongly recommend that nobody waste their time on an issue
which in a couple
On Feb 23, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Marco and yourself are *a way* off topic. Please at least have the
> decency to rename the subject of the tread to "systemd fanboys flamewar
> yet-again bashing OpenRC just for fun" or something similar (but
> preferably: don't just do that in this list, and avo
On Feb 23, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> But you aren't planning on running openrc at all, are you?
Who is? Seriously, would you mind stepping forward?
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd-sysv+upstart+openrc&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2014-01-01&to_da
On Feb 15, Paul Wise wrote:
> > But how to make the decision whether libav or FFmpeg is better for jessie?
> Seems like getting the two upstreams to collaborate and merge the two
> forks is the way to go.
A fork exists exactly because the upstream developers do not want to
collaborate, not becau
+---+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, |
On Feb 09, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > That's it... So that's a typical case where it should be possible to fix
> > things, and get rid of bash.
> Is that really an important goal to spend our time on?
No. It has never been a goal, there is nothing to "fix" here.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Descr
On Jan 25, Svante Signell wrote:
> Whatever you have decided about Linux only, this is relevant
> information. Debian is about versatility in the Unix/Posix way, not any
No, it's not. Next.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jan 25, Sebastien Badia wrote:
> Description : Smarter Puppet deployment, powered by killer robots
I recommend that we keep packages descriptions to factual statements.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jan 24, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Unlike other Oslo deliverables, it should not be used as a Python library,
> but
> called as a separate process through the oslo-rootwrap command.
Is this really important enough to be part of the package description?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Descript
On Jan 20, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I've just had a look at it, and found that it misses some important
> features present in xpdf, e.g.
Let me add:
* an higher zoom level
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jan 13, Svante Signell wrote:
> Is it true that xpdf is about to disappear. I like that program very
> much. For which reasons, in addition to the 7 RC bugs, a dead upstream?
Do you need more reasons?
> Maybe this question should go to debian-release instead?
Maybe you should send patches ins
On Jan 13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> OK. I will take it. Would you prefer me to do an upload right away
> to change the Maintainer or can it wait (weeks very likely) until I've
> had a chance to do some actual work on it ?
No hurry.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jan 12, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> It still seems to have a fair number of loyal users though. I see your
popcon says 1867 have it installed, but only 222 "voted".
> If we do have such a
> replacement (I just don't know) please mention it in the removal bug
> report.
I agree with waldi that
I stopped maintaining it years ago and nobody ever bothered to ask me
about it...
It does not support MIME and a lot of other things that are required to
be a good citizen in today's Internet, so unless somebody has some
really compelling arguments to keep it around and wants to adopt it
I will
On Dec 30, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Any thoughts?
The correct solution is completing #652459, which mounts /usr in the
initramfs.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Dec 28, "Bernhard R. Link" wrote:
> Almost no upstream author cares about licensing at all. The mayority of
Great, no ethical issues to be concerned with then.
> Debian is no corporation that can just willy-nilly copy stuff around
> without caring for the law and hoping noone will find out or
On Dec 23, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Red Hat only needs to meet the standard that they don't think there's risk
> to the company of being sued for a license violation. Debian holds itself
> to a higher, ethical standard of complying with the license even when the
> risks are small.
I am clearly mi
On Dec 22, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> We should do that (and also reevaluate the position wrt OpenSSL) by
> running it by the Software Freedom Law Center.
>
> Red Hat has real lawyers who looked into the issue, we should do the
> same.
Agreed, Debian has been promoting bad decisions due to deve
On Oct 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are various other options, including not changing away from sysvinit
> or someone porting the necessary support to Hurd and kFreeBSD. Or, of
> course, dropping Hurd and kFreeBSD, although I'm sure that no one wants
> that outcome.
Well. If the choice is bet
On Oct 26, Luca Capello wrote:
> A small note: does anyone consider that there are still people on
> not-so-fast Internet connections?
Yes: unless they need to install multiple computers (unusual, I think)
and do not know how to share the downloaded packages among them, then
netinstall is the m
On Oct 26, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If neither Upstart or Systemd works for these non-Linux ports, then
> there's OpenRC. Which is why I worked on it (and I did this, mainly
> because of "ethical and philosophical reasons" as you put it). It
> wouldn't hurt to have more help on it...
Having all pa
On Oct 26, Svante Signell wrote:
> This really pinpoints the whole problem: What happened to the Unix
> philosophy, with freedom of choice?
We killed it for good in 2008:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Oct 26, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'd find it very nice if we had, by default, DNSSEC resolving in Debian,
> at least in the "default" configuration (whatever that means). By this,
I agree with the general principle, but I do not think that a recursive
resolver should be installed by default on
On Oct 25, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the long term, we certainly need a decision for the default init system
> in Debian.
No: we need one in the short term to be able to support it in jessie, or
we will be stuck with an antiquated init system for many more years.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.as
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot infrastructure: mounting local/remote bl
On Oct 25, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Why? “Multiple init systems” is not a feature that any of our users
> > should care of. It is not a functional goal.
> Well I guess users *do* care... just look at the posts from the last few
> days.
Just because some people have different personal p
On Oct 25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> • Your primary use case appears to be “the desktop”, whereas Debian, as
> opposed to some of its downstreams and Pure Blends, is a Universal OS,
> which means it’s got much more servers in use, which don’t benefit from
> systemd either at all or at least
It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based
init system.
Pros:
- more features
- stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments
- being more similar to one of the other relevant distributions (RHEL or
Ubuntu)
- things like gnome become easier to package
Cons:
- so
On Oct 25, Neil Williams wrote:
> If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's own
> merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of a
The arguments for a modern init system have been discussed over and
over.
I do not mind replacing gnome with something else
On Oct 25, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We've had this discussion multiple times over the years. I've been
> told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs. I'm not 100% convinced
I can pull random statistics out of my ass as well, if
On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> What do you mean by "holding hostile root." ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should
be ready for jessie.
Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
use openvz wit
On Sep 12, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> 2013-09-12 02:35:44 TLS error on connection from ore.jhcloos.com
> [198.147.23.85] (gnutls_handshake): The signature algorithm is not supported.
Maybe it is related to this?
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.10.2.html
TLS Interoperability workar
On Aug 20, olivier sallou wrote:
> This particular package is for use in virtual machines creation where
> package removes default network persistence.
Please explain what you are actually trying to achieve.
> Is there an other way to override udev rules in package or should I simply
> override
On Jul 16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This reflects poorly on the infrastructure in question. Handling /etc as a
> separate filesystem from /, aside from not being a feature anyone else
> has asked for and not being a requirement for reducing deltas with upstreams
> / other distros, implies that th
On Jul 16, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> There are ways to express this without calling anyone "idiots". Or
> do you believe that Debian is incapable of making solid technical
> decisions without namecalling?
We may consider it as character evidence.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digit
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> But there is a difference between "not used after its done as the project
> proofed that it is not able to deliver something more valuable" and
> "saying midway that whatever the student does, it will be discarded".
Whatever the student will do it cannot cha
On Jul 14, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Because it would be stupid, since it requires either one of:
- implementing the equivalent of init scripts for each init system
- dumbing down the init systems to the lowest common denominator (and
when
On Jul 14, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is
> > wasted on this dead end.
> It's a shame that such objections haven't been raised in a timely manner
> and through the proper channels.
I did it here and in #684396, so I think that
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I am seriously expecting that Debian will not waste time
On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> well.
And even if ported and fully working it will still lack the features
needed by a modern init system.
Open
On Jul 02, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> You're slipping. Your trolling used to be way more subtle.
I do not think that Svante has ever been trolling.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Jun 07, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> - We do have the source code for generating it (preferred form of
> modification).
>
> - We can build it, but it requires lot of work... and avoid FTBFSs while
> bootstrapping ;)
>
> So, could we accept pre-generated documentation in thi
On May 31, Jeff Epler wrote:
> The idea that somehow users of non-linux kernels don't matter or don't
> even exist as debian users is one of the most frustrating bits of this
> whole thread.
I'm sorry for the three kfreebsd users, but sometimes reality sucks.
Pretending that their needs are as mu
On May 30, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> (I'm afraid to feed the troll)
Hint: before accusing somebody of trolling it is a good idea to find out
who he is.
> > There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not care about" deal,
> Do you have an example?
Persistent naming of network interfaces.
> > a
On May 30, Chris Knadle wrote:
> There's a reason it feels like this. Postfix was designed with security in
> mind, but wasn't focused on being a general purpose MTA.
Says who? Because I was around at the time, and I remember pretty well
that the goal was to write a sendmail replacement.
And a
On May 30, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I never quite understood why people seem to think systemd upstream is
> uncooperative (well, apart from the whole non-linux porting deal, where
> their stance is completely understandable too). My experience so far
There is also the "kill features Red Hat does not
Now that we are done with systemd for the time being, can we have the
flame war about replacing Exim with Postfix as the default MTA?
Are there any objections other than "but I like it this way!"?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On May 21, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We don't need to select a single init system at this point, and it would
As the maintainer of a package which is strongly tied to the init
system, I disagree.
> Then, something I failed to find in the discussion was a discussion of
> how sysvinit / systemd / u
On May 20, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Since the state of Debian experimental is well "experimental", should
> we care about upgrade paths from experimental to unstable? I am
> inclined to say "no", but I would like to hear opinion of other
> developers.
Indeed, no.
If there is a risk of something crash
501 - 600 of 1926 matches
Mail list logo
