On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
> > > been removed.
> > [...]
> > > #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
> > > it should be.
> > (which you later said it should
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> problems with the new system, why do we need to support downgrading?
Because several people pref
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:52:03AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
> > So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> > bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> > problems with the new system, why d
]] Andreas Barth
| Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
| from insserv to oldstyle booting".
|
| And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
| our users nor our developers at large considers that a feature, but
| rather a very grave bug.
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
> The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
> breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
> /etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all to describe all
> kinds of crackfu
Hi Tollef!
* Tollef Fog Heen [2009-08-24 10:27]:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor our developers a
Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
>> been removed.
> [...]
>> #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
>> it should be.
> (which you later said it should be #511753)
>
> These two only seem to occur when inss
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
>> the time being.
>
> Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
> to be adressed to fix boot sequence ordering.
>
> Sure ad
Hi, Steve:
On Monday 24 August 2009 09:19:28 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
[...]
> > Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> > from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> >
> > And that is a statement that I heavily
Hi, Tollef:
On Monday 24 August 2009 10:27:07 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor o
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
>> the time being.
>
> Why?
>
> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> problems with the n
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor our developers at large considers that a feat
Martin Wuertele wrote:
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
/etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all to describe al
Hi Giacomo!
* Giacomo A. Catenazzi [2009-08-24 11:33]:
> BTW the "resolving dependencies" is done at installation/update time, not at
> every boot.
You're right. I should time the calculation on those ~200 MHz low-ram boxes
- I don't expect this to be reasonably fast tough.
Yours Martin
--
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
> > the time being.
>
> Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
> to be adressed
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [090824 08:54]:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
> > the time being.
>
> Until what?
Until we know that the new method really works 100% correct, people
enjoy the switch an
On 2009-08-24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's granted but it's easier to say from your place instead of petter's
> place... I for one appreciate the work that he has put in all this and
> I would highly prefer that you help him instead of complaining about his
> work.
*sigh* If we all had the t
Sirs,
We use Debian GNU/Linux for development at our company and need to know
what Export Control Classification Number it has been given. Can you
provide that information?
Thank you,
Carrie Singleton
Engineering Aide
GE
Aviation
Digital Systems
T +1 616 241 7382
F +1 616 224 6844
E carrie.si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/09 12:01, Singleton, Carrie (GE Infra, Aviation, US) wrote:
> Sirs,
>
> We use Debian GNU/Linux for development at our company and need to know
> what Export Control Classification Number it has been given. Can you
> provide that information?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
Yes. upstart conflicts with the essential sysvinit package…
Cheers,
Julien
--
To U
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Singleton, Carrie (GE Infra,
Aviation, US) wrote:
> Sirs,
>
> We use Debian GNU/Linux for development at our company and need to know
> what Export Control Classification Number it has been given. Can you
> provide that information?
>From the list archives and our
Hi,
the subject basically says it: why is this thread not on -devel? AFAICS this
is a technical discussion, while -project is for non-technical discussions?
/me wonders if Andreas had a reason for this or if this is just what I
described in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg0030
* Holger Levsen (hol...@layer-acht.org) [090824 14:41]:
> the subject basically says it: why is this thread not on -devel? AFAICS this
> is a technical discussion, while -project is for non-technical discussions?
>
> /me wonders if Andreas had a reason for this or if this is just what I
> descri
Hi Andreas,
On Montag, 24. August 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Because I don't see it mainly as a technical issue - but might be
> influenced a bit by it.
As what kind of issue, if non-technical, do you see this?
You described a technical change, some technical problems with that and you
propos
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without any
> magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the mess
> called insserv...
There are reports of init script not working because they rely on some
oth
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
*snip*
> So please point us to bugs related to breakages on upgrades (there have
> been some I know, but I think Petter dealt with them correctly) if you
> want to use that argument to not switch to insserv by default. The
> current bugs tha
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
>> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
>
> Yes. upstart conflicts with the essential sysvinit pac
On 2009-08-24, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
>>> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
>> Yes. upstart conf
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without
>> any
>> magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the
>> mess
>> called insserv...
>
> There are reports of init script n
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without
> > any
> > magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the
> > mess
> > called ins
On Monday 24 August 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> When was it uploaded to experimental?
> When was there a call to test the new things while they're in
> experimental? This is NOT the way really important parts of Debian
> should be maintained.
I'm no fan of insserv (I have the new sysv-rc on hold
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> only supported option.
I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in question.
If people aren't willing to provide those patches, then th
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
>
>> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
>> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
>> problems with the new system, why do we need to support downgra
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
>
>> The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
>> breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
>> /etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
>>> been removed.
>> [...]
>>> #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
>>> it should be.
>> (which you later said it should be #511753)
>>
>> These tw
Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
>
> *snip*
>
>> So please point us to bugs related to breakages on upgrades (there have
>> been some I know, but I think Petter dealt with them correctly) if you
>> want to use that argument to not switch to insserv b
On 2009-08-24 19:47 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Switching away from sysv-rc is apparently possible as Phil is using
> upstart with insserv.
This means switching away from sysvinit, but not from sysv-rc; upstart
conflicts with the former, but depends on the latter.
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:47:52PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> For (semi-)essential packages there is no guarantee that removing will
> be easy. I know of quite some essential packages that are not easy to
> remove at all.
> Switching away from sysv-rc is apparently possible as Phil is using
> upst
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> With dependency based ordering, you just state the dependencies and you
>> let it figure out the order.
>>
>>> There are advantages to dependency-based boot sys
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> > only supported option.
>
> I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in questi
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> > > only supported option.
> > I
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:41:27PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > Because several people prefere to use file-rc for various reasons, e.g.
> > on embedded systems. Therefore it is essential that insserv can be
> > purged without running into such bugs.
>
> AFAIK embedded syste
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency
> > from sysv-rc on insserv. The patch to fix this is trivial. (I'm
> > refraining to open a
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:54:04PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> Well, both are deterministic but they do not decide of the ordering in the
> >> same way and it's just easier for our brains to represent a n
Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
*snip*
> Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where you list your
services and the bootlevels. So we have a configfile here. I would have to
reorder the whole file
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:43:25PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > It's easy to maintain, it doesn't require a bunch of symlinks like
> > sysv-rc nor does it require the magic of insserv, it is easy to change
> > the order in which services are started without time-consuming re
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 20:34]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > It's perfectly possible to make it the defaul
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [090824 20:51]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency
> > > from sysv-rc on insserv. T
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
>> our users nor our developers at large considers that a feature, but
>> rather a very grave bug.
> I don't presume to know what the maj
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>Steve Langasek writes:
>
>There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
>to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>recommends would do the job! We have supported regular sysv
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
> to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
> recommends would do the job! We have supported regular sysv-rc and
> file-rc for ye
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
>> to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>> recommends would do the job! We have supported regular
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this kind of bug will occur; indeed, given that Petter
> has been working on this for a long time, I would be surprised if there
> were many such bugs in Debian.
>
> However, we cannot be sure whether this is or is not the case until
> we've tried; and in
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to a
> dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called insserv?
There was a *ton* of discussion of insserv across multiple mailing lists
over a period of at least months and I think years.
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>>> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not
>>> hard to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>>> recommends woul
Hi,
On Montag, 24. August 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> The difference is that now many tests can be performed and the
> bugs fixed;
If this is true, and I believe it is, I will buy you a $beer next time we
meet - and remember :-)
Thanks.
convinced,
Holger
P.S.: always questioning
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:57:35AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to a
> dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called insserv? Why
> don't I have the choice to stay with the old sys-rc way, as this is clearly
>
Hi Luk!
* Luk Claes [2009-08-24 19:42]:
> There is no reason to use insserv on embedded systems, though if you do,
> you could create the image somewhere else on a fast machine and don't
> have the draw backs of time-consuming resolving dependencies AFAICS?
If insserv breakes all other options
Russ Allbery writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
>> How is calling update-rc.d making our maintainer scripts fragile?
> It's the things that update-rc.d doesn't support directly that are a
> problem, like moving start numbers.
True, but just using insserv will not fix this problem. As long
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
> >> How is calling update-rc.d making our maintainer scripts fragile?
> > It's the things that update-rc.d doesn't support directly that are a
> > problem, like moving start numbers.
>
>
60 matches
Mail list logo
