+++ 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 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
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
* 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
34 matches
Mail list logo
