Serge,
I'm in the favor of having a try with OpenRC, and see what we can do,
but here, your post is a bit naive at least in some cases. Let me
explain why.
On 09/05/2012 11:47 AM, Serge wrote:
>> I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their
>> own solution instead of helpi
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Sorry for writing such a long email, but I believe that having
a welcoming environment is very important for debian.
>> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
>> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare ev
On 09/02/12 20:43, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Hi!
> Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
> because I don't have it from a "official" Gentoo source):
> I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
> systemd,
No.
> and find the possibility very funny that
Hi!
Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information,
because I don't have it from a "official" Gentoo source):
I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to
systemd, and find the possibility very funny that Gentoo switches to
systemd from OpenRC and Debian switches
Le samedi 01 septembre 2012 à 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
> feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times smaller),
Code size is a compelling argument only with the same set of features.
Which is not the case.
> to
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 19:34 +0300, Serge a écrit :
> Yeah, one init system, one kernel, one libc, one distribution, one
> window manager, one OS. Looks like a windows-way. :)
There’s a huge difference between being able to switch between window
managers and to switch between init/kernel/libc.
Hi again,
On Sonntag, 2. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> I am completely calm. And I do apologise, I am sorry for suggesting that
> somebody steps down from the project. That was wrong, admitted.
thanks! (a lot.)
> However, for the statement above, calling everything not in line with
>
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Svante Signell wrote:
> >On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
> >> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
...
> >> > As for Debian not being universal, this
Hey Svante,
On Samstag, 1. September 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
> like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
> Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
Svante, maybe you should
+++ Faidon Liambotis [2012-08-11 03:48 +0300]:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For exa
On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
>> Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
>> the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
>
> Should it have all of those
I demand that Thomas Goirand may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Sure, OpenRC doesn't have (yet) all the features of systemd. But because of
> the above, it might be worth to *at least* give it a chance.
Should it have all of those features? Should it require support from other
packages? (Are
Le Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 09:02:06PM +0200, Svante Signell a écrit :
>
> Maybe you, Josselin, should step down from working on Debian. It looks
> like your priorities are not in line with the Debian goals and the
> Debian contract any longer. Whatever the consequences will be.
In general I am for d
Svante Signell wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
>> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
>>
>> > As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
>> > But toy ports and toy init systems
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:34 +0300, Serge wrote:
> 2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Linux is still not about choice? Then let's make it be about choice!
>
> > As for Debian not being universal, this is certainly not my saying.
> > But toy ports and toy init systems are part of what makes Debian
Le 31 août 2012 10:06, "Josselin Mouette" a écrit :
>
> Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
> > 2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
such
> > > as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
>
On 09/01/12 04:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
>> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
>> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
>> have Debian forgotten and dead. S
On 09/01/2012 04:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> There should be at least some compelling technical arguments for
> OpenRC.
There are, and they have been listed already.
It goes from a more manageable code (for some parts, the same
feature as in systemd, but with a code that is 5 times s
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote:
>
> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
> have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying that you not only reduce the number
> of bugs in
On 08/31/2012 03:50 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> That means there is someone who will pester other maintainers to “fix”
> their init scripts so that they work with another half-baked init
> implementation.
>
Ah... And that will not happen with systemd? Come on, we all
know that we will have to
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we
> shouldn't be messing around with it. Focus on the best solution,
> period.
It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
should say things like that, unles
2012/8/31 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features
>>> such as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand this point.
>>
>> If it's about just adding more bugs without bringing anything good
>> wi
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> One good init system can answer all our needs, while four bad ones will
> certainly not.
I fully agree.
The init system is a critical part of the operating system, so we shouldn't be
messing around with it. Focus on the best solution, peri
Le vendredi 31 août 2012 à 04:18 +0300, Serge a écrit :
> 2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
> > as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this point.
>
> If it's about ju
2012/8/10 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
>> the Linux port.
>
> Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
> as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
Sorry, I don't understand thi
On 08/19/2012 07:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
>> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
>> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
>> exo
On 08/10/2012 09:25 AM, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette [2012-08-09 23:15]:
>
>> And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
>> value. Linux is not about choice.
>
> Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Strong ack. I'm using open source software because I wa
On 08/10/2012 10:55 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 10, Philip Hands wrote:
>
>> Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
>> to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
> I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
> interest is in
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We don't have a particularly good way of handling this situation right now
> other than one-off work on each package that may need to be treated
> unusually. It's a bit difficult for the maintainer to determine the
> implications for
* Ben Hutchings [120820 20:21]:
> I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
> amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
> they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
> to mean collective interests (i.e. numbers matter)
Philipp Kern writes:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
>> means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
>> should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the fai
Le lundi 20 août 2012 à 18:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> I don't think we should expect other developers to spend any large
> amount of time to help with our own pet projects, except in so far as
> they benefit 'our users and the free software community', which I take
> to mean collective in
Philipp Kern writes:
> Of course, if GNOME is unused one could just remove it completely from
> those ports, but I doubt that your approach of "it's just a minute of
> work to RM it" is welcomed. (Well, the maintainers would probably like
> it, as long as there won't be bugs claiming that you hav
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:41:15PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> > wrote:
> > >Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
> > >of toy ports?
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
> > systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> > features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> > allow
> >
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 15:38 -0400, Chris Knadle a écrit :
> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> allow
> shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
In the beginning, ConsoleKit didn’t allow
Le samedi 18 août 2012 à 17:40 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> wrote:
> >Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
> >of toy ports?
>
> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
> architec
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
> means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
> should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the failing
> port.
>
> That's abo
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
>> Michael Biebl writes:
>>
>> > If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
>> > then something is going seriously wrong.
>>
>> I've yet to see said criticism.
>
> In the abse
Le Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13:23PM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> Michael Biebl writes:
>
> > If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
> > then something is going seriously wrong.
>
> I've yet to see said criticism.
In the absense of regression tests, we distribu
Michael Biebl writes:
> If those ports need a GR to silence any criticsm regarding those ports,
> then something is going seriously wrong.
I've yet to see said criticism.
--
|8]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On 19.08.2012 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
>> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
>> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
>> exotic
Marc Haber writes:
> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
> I am seriously thinking about a GR explicitly endorsing the work on more
> exotic ports to stop this derogatory, impolite and cont
Marc Haber wrote:
> Amen. I find it derogatory towards the people spending months of their
> private time to make exotic ports work to call their work "toy ports".
There are people who use their time doing things like hopping across a
continent on one foot. That is a lot of work, but it's not part
On 12942 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
> Does it? Who said so?
> But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
> down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
>
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:14:22 +0800, Aron Xu
wrote:
>For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
>behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
>so. I'm not using those ports everyday but I respect their passion and
>efforts.
Amen. I find it derogatory to
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:47:43 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
>Does it? Who said so?
"We". In the same way you say "we" when you claim to be talking about
Debian and tr
On Aug 18, Aron Xu wrote:
> For yourself, they might be toy ports, but please don't speak on
> behalf of others from time to time when nobody authorized you to do
> so.
I am not, but I understand that arguing about this is much easier than
arguing that incomplete ports used by a few dozen people
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
>> architectures.
> Does it? Who said so?
> But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
> down the OS which people
On Aug 18, Marc Haber wrote:
> Because Debian prides itself in being Universal regarding ports and
> architectures.
Does it? Who said so?
But even if this were true, it does not automatically justify dumbing
down the OS which people in the real world use for the sake of toy
ports.
--
ciao,
Ma
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:50:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
>écrit :
>> What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
>> work.
>
>Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
On 13.08.2012 00:50, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 12, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
> Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
> it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
It is laughab
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Just to bring this back on topic, if the initial tests of OpenRC
> show it to be viable and that it's possible to upgrade seamlessly
> from sysv-rc, then I would propose to drop sysv-rc entirely, rather
> than having a choice here. OpenRC would be a replac
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I did start the initial Debian
> > packaging work last night though.
>
> Is this available in a Git somewhere?
It's here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/openrc.git
On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I did start the initial Debian
> packaging work last night though.
>
Is this available in a Git somewhere?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists
On 08/13/2012 05:20 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> As one wrote previously: mdev and OpenRC lack hostile upstreams! :)
>>
> They also lack solving large parts of the problem space.
>
I don't think anyone denies that fact. Hopefully, this will change.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
On Aug 13, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Isn't forking udev something similar to working on mdev? How many people
No, you just have to look at the code bases and features set to
understand why.
> At many level, udev has been really annoying, breaking upgrades and so on.
I can't help with you being an
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 03:12:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think Steve's point is that the goal is to make Debian technically
> excellent. Sometimes that means providing choice, and sometimes it
> doesn't. All things being equal, I think a system that's flexible is more
> technically excel
* Josselin Mouette [2012-08-10 13:27]:
> Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> > That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
> > to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
>
> glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other alternat
* Marco d'Itri [2012-08-11 11:30]:
> We are not dismissing any other alternative, upstart still looks like
> an option.
> We are dismissing just openrc because its incremental benefits are
> trivial.
You don't speak on behalf of the debian project so please refrein from
using "we" - you don't
On 08/13/2012 04:50 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
> it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
> any use case except (some) embedded systems.
>
> If the time will come the interested parties will fork ude
On Aug 12, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?
Waste of time, mdev lacks critical features like modules autoloading so
it is laughable to argue that it is a credible udev replacement for
any use case except (some) embedded systems.
If the time will c
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> "Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
>> haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
>> that support entirely" - Lennart Poettering
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> >> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> >> area. As with other monopolies, this often
On Aug 12, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> "Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
> haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
> that support entirely" - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)
If this will become true, I am s
On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
>> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
>> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have s
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 18:02:04, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> >> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> >> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> >> allow shutdo
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
>> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
>> allow
>> shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
It *does* work for me here - KDM doesn'
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't
> allow
> shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
That doesn't sound like an inherent systemd
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 01:12:10, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> > area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> > stagnation, stopping developin
On 08/11/2012 10:29 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
>^^
>
>
>> Please stop saying "we". *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
>>
> Pot.
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^
> Please stop saying "we". *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 08/11/2012 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand wrote
>> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
>> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
>> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
>> just becau
On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
> just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For exam
❦ 11 août 2012 01:12 CEST, Josselin Mouette :
>> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
>> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
>> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
>> that occasionally.
>
>
On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
> that occasionally.
>
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:53:45AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> > > > > Debian is about the freedom to choose.
> > No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technica
Faidon Liambotis writes:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There are choices that we don't support because the process of
>> supporting that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and
>> the final goal is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For
>> example, we don't allow
On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow
> users to replace the system C li
Le samedi 11 août 2012 à 00:53 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin a écrit :
> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
> that o
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent
>> operating system that meets our users needs.
>> Developers need the freedom to *make* autonomous technical choices as
>> part of the process of makin
On 2012-08-10 09:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> > > Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> > > > Debian is about the freedom to choose.
[...]
> No, it really isn't. It's about creating a technically excellent operating
> system that meets our users needs.
>
> D
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 00:50 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
> écrit :
> > What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
> > work.
>
> Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> There are two main issues with trying to support multiple init systems.
> The first one is the time needed to do it. The second and more important
> one is being limited by the features of the less capable implementation,
> which wou
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:03:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 10/08/2012 08:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:16:17AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >> Wasn't the idea of porting to non-Linux rejected by upstart's upstream?
> > Porting upstart to non-Linux kernels has
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:21:08PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:11:12 +0200
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> > > Debian is about the freedom to choose.
> > No, it is not.
> No, it is.
No, it really is
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> Dear Guys,
>
> Thanks a lot for the input from Marco d'Itri, Holger Levsen and Thomas
> Goirand, as well as Aron Xu off list.
>
> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was
Hello,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:11:12 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> > Debian is about the freedom to choose.
> No, it is not.
No, it is.
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 17:04 +0900, hero...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> Debian is about the freedom to choose.
No, it is not.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 11:56 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> That we do no longer have glibc in the archive and we had a transition
> to eglibc was an understandable maintainer decision.
glibc/eglibc is not comparable to the other alternatives, the
differences are extremely tiny.
> How is
* Marco d'Itri [2012-08-10 11:27]:
> On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele wrote:
>
> > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
> > And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
> > kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
> > c library: glib
On Aug 10, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
> And that really explains why there is a choice for core functions like
> kernel event handler: udevd, hotplug2, mdev
> c library: glibc, eglibc, dietlibc
They exist, and guess what? W
On Aug 10, Philip Hands wrote:
> Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
> to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
I really do not care about what the openrc developers will do, my
interest is in what Debian developers will do.
> So, please tell us
* Josselin Mouette [2012-08-10 10:12]:
> Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> > Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
> > the Linux port.
>
> Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
> as the init sy
Dear Guys,
Thanks a lot for the input from Marco d'Itri, Holger Levsen and Thomas
Goirand, as well as Aron Xu off list.
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> openrc was recently discussed on debian-devel@ and there was a large
> consensus that it is not a credible alternative to upstart and sy
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 09:23 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> Please explain why adding another sysv-rc drop-in replacements cripples
> the Linux port.
Because being able to choose between alternatives for core features such
as the init system only brings more bugs and no added value.
http:/
* Josselin Mouette [2012-08-09 23:15]:
> And no, choice between multiple broken implementation is NOT added
> value. Linux is not about choice.
Luckily that is not everyones opinion.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
* Josselin Mouette [2012-08-10 01:06]:
> Le jeudi 09 août 2012 à 23:53 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a
> écrit :
> > What about Debian kFreeBSD and Hurd? AFAIK systemd needs a linux kernel to
> > work.
>
> Please explain again why we should cripple the Linux port for the sake
> of toy port
Hi Marco,
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Aug 10, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement
>> for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that).
> So do the other init systems.
> The point is what they can do which sysvinit (and
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
