Excerpts from Chow Loong Jin's message of 2013-06-12 11:06:54 -0700:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:44:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:40:22PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> >
> > > Bitrot doesn't happen immediately, and even when it does happen, it will
> > > take t
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Ondřej Surý writes:
> > > I still think you should also update the table with information if the
> > > library is actually used in PID 1 (or in forked process) as hmh
> suggested:
> > >
> > >> It would be best to
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:44:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:40:22PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>
> > Bitrot doesn't happen immediately, and even when it does happen, it will
> > take time before its rate reaches an unmanageable state. Plenty of time
> > to test
Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Ondřej Surý writes:
> > I still think you should also update the table with information if the
> > library is actually used in PID 1 (or in forked process) as hmh suggested:
> >
> >> It would be best to enhance
> >> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-depe
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:40:22PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> Bitrot doesn't happen immediately, and even when it does happen, it will
> take time before its rate reaches an unmanageable state. Plenty of time
> to test a solution in the meantime I say. Basic autogeneration of
> sysvinit and
Hi Ondřej,
Ondřej Surý writes:
> I still think you should also update the table with information if the
> library is actually used in PID 1 (or in forked process) as hmh suggested:
>
>> It would be best to enhance
>> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html with
>> info
Le 12/06/2013 09:49, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:04:38 +0200, Michael Stapelberg
> wrote:
>> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>> first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>> Debian systemd survey:
>>
>> http://people.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> [...]
> |While it is sad that those machines cannot profit from systemd, switching
> |to systemd as a default has no downside either: Debian continues to
> |support sysvinit for quite some time, so these machines will continue
> |to work
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Stapelberg
wrote:
> Hi Ondřej,
>
> Ondřej Surý writes:
> > and if I match this with the table at:
> > http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html I
> get
> > the result that you will _not_ compile systemd with:
> >
> >
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:04:38 +0200, Michael Stapelberg
wrote:
>since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>Debian systemd survey:
>
>http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/06/09/systemd-bloat.html
T
Hi Ondřej,
Ondřej Surý writes:
> and if I match this with the table at:
> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html I get
> the result that you will _not_ compile systemd with:
>
> libselinux.so
> libpam.so
> libwrap.so
> libaudit.so
> libkmod.so
>
> because they are mar
]] Ondřej Surý
> Tollef, it is still unclear to me as well.
Ok, I'll try to be clearer then.
> You said:
>
> > I'd like to align with upstream here (and in general): If upstream says
> > a component is optional, that's a configuration I'd in general want to
> > support. If upstream says a com
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> ]] Thomas Goirand
>
> > If what you say above is right (I have no opinion on that yet, I just
> > trust what you say), then this renders the "systemd is modular" argument
> > completely useless, because practically, the user wont be able
]] Thomas Goirand
> If what you say above is right (I have no opinion on that yet, I just
> trust what you say), then this renders the "systemd is modular" argument
> completely useless, because practically, the user wont be able to
> choose. Which is why I was asking specifically Michael about t
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 02:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Then which component would you install, and activate by default? Which
> >> component will you make only installable if the user decides to do it
> >> actively (for
On 06/11/2013 02:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 06/10/2013 03:21 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>>> Thomas Goirand writes:
In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
components of systemd. Then, the immed
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 06/10/2013 03:21 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Thomas Goirand writes:
> >> In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
> >> components of systemd. Then, the immediate question that pops to my
> >> mind: what are *your* inten
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Le 2013-06-10 10:18, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
>
>
> systemd does not rely on a toolkit. So, most of the arguments
>>> listed by
>>> Jamie do not hold. I suppose that you are mostly worried by libdbus
>>> since other libraries are already use
Le 2013-06-10 10:18, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
systemd does not rely on a toolkit. So, most of the arguments
listed by
Jamie do not hold. I suppose that you are mostly worried by libdbus
since other libraries are already used in other critical
daemons.
Personally I would be more worried about libp
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 9 juin 2013 11:45 CEST, Bjørn Mork :
>
> > You do of course not have to agree. This is my personal opinion only.
> > But I believe it is useful to read Jamie Zawinski's view on screensavers
> > and toolkit library dependencies, and try
On 06/10/2013 03:21 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>> In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
>> components of systemd. Then, the immediate question that pops to my
>> mind: what are *your* intentions then, in Debian (or, said in an
]] Robert Collins
> On 10 June 2013 07:21, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > Thomas Goirand writes:
> >> In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
> >> components of systemd. Then, the immediate question that pops to my
> >> mind: what are *your* intention
On 10 June 2013 07:21, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>> In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
>> components of systemd. Then, the immediate question that pops to my
>> mind: what are *your* intentions then, in Debian (or, said in ano
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Goirand writes:
> In this blog post, you tell that it's possible not to use all the
> components of systemd. Then, the immediate question that pops to my
> mind: what are *your* intentions then, in Debian (or, said in another
> way, what would you like to do if you where the onl
On 06/09/2013 07:04 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/06/09/systemd-bloat.html
❦ 9 juin 2013 11:45 CEST, Bjørn Mork :
> You do of course not have to agree. This is my personal opinion only.
> But I believe it is useful to read Jamie Zawinski's view on screensavers
> and toolkit library dependencies, and try to figure out how that can be
> relevant to systemd and external
Hi Bjørn,
Thanks for your well-put mail. As far as I understand it, your concern
is that libraries might exit() (either due to actually calling exit() or
due to having a bug) and therefore take pid 1 with them.
I am sure that the systemd developers are very aware of this fact. They
even published
Michael Stapelberg writes:
> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/06/09/systemd-bloat.html
I was hoping you would cover my
Please note that I am not advocating for or against systemd, but...
With regards complexity and whether it is intrinsic or not, Rich
Hickey puts forward a more rigorous definition of complexity, and how
it is sometimes in tension with easiness...
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy-
Hi,
since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
Debian systemd survey:
http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/06/09/systemd-bloat.html
--
Best regards,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
30 matches
Mail list logo
