Hi,
2014-05-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Jordi Mallach :
> Hi!
>
> Below is a report from the recently held systemd + GNOME sprint in
> Antwerp. Enjoy!
>
>
>
> We finally discussed how to tackle Bluez5. Bluez 4 is the current release
> available in Debian, which is dead upstream and deprecated since late
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
> Hi,
>
> Kevin Chadwick:
> > > * last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
> > > one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
> > > kindly tell us which package that is and what you're
Hi Jordi,
thanks for the informative report, it seems to have been an awesome sprint!
On Freitag, 2. Mai 2014, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Besides this, quite a few more topics were discussed, like trying to make
> our experimental packages always installable...
if you think it would be useful, I'd b
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
> > * last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
> > one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
> > kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to do.
>
> My first mail stated it.
Did not. See below.
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
> >
> > Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion! I suspect
> > but haven't mentioned that I expect the reasons for bundling these
> > components together to be on highly questionabl
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
> previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
>
> > The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
> > than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
> > want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the package
> > Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
>
> Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion!
Ever read you own "signature"?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lis
Hello,
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
> The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
> than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
> want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the packages
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
> The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
> than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
> want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the packages depending
> on them, or are y
Hi,
Cameron Norman:
> I understand just fine how it is packaged. It is packaged in a way that
> pushes components down other's throats and tells users to simply disable
> them if they are not necessary.
So? The standard case is that they're either not really optional,
or they passively sit aroun
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:28:44AM -0007, Cameron Norman wrote:
> This is incredibly unfair to those components' competitors because it is not
> a fair playing field.
We are not having a sports competition here.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
El Sun, 4 de May 2014 a las 5:59 PM, Marco d'Itri
escribió:
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.
Constructive solution you have got there.
Example two: someone needs logind
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
El Sun, 4 de May 2014 a las 4:24 PM, Marco d'Itri
escribió:
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
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
previously on this list Michael Biebl contributed:
> Anyone interested in keeping standalone logind working is invited to
> help the systemd-shim maintainer to implement and test this
> functionality (it will most likely be using cgmanager for that as far as
> I heard). Having v208 out is a prereq
Am 04.05.2014 00:55, schrieb Matthias Urlichs:
> Hi,
>
>>> 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
>>
> Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
> before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
> before going forward to yet another
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
>>
> Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
> before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
> before going forward to
Am Freitag, den 02.05.2014, 01:26 +0200 schrieb Jordi Mallach:
> Below is a report from the recently held systemd + GNOME sprint in
> Antwerp. Enjoy!
o_O Impressive productivity, keep up the great work!
Thank you all!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
Hi,
> > 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
>
Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
before going forward to yet another version with (probably) its own issues.
--
-- Matthias
Hi Jordi, and thanks for this interesting report!
One point I'd like to see discussed is the Bluez5 transition:
Le vendredi, 2 mai 2014, 01.26:15 Jordi Mallach a écrit :
> We finally discussed how to tackle Bluez5. Bluez 4 is the current
> release available in Debian, which is dead upstream and d
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach wrote:
>> Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
>
> 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
I believe people pushing AppArmor in Debian would appreciate that.
v2
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
23 matches
Mail list logo
