Hi,
Ralf Jung:
> In fact I am surprised that what we seem to end up with is an
> alternative implementation of some internal systemd APIs (called
> systemd-shim), which *will* break in backwards-incompatible ways -
> instead of a reimplementation of the API that devs (of policykit or
> various DEs
Hi,
> The bottom line is I think it's fair to say you *are* locked into
> systemd journald in a way you weren't locked into syslog. Claims that
> you can just write another one exporting the same API don't ring true,
> because I suspect the API will be about as stable as an internal kernel
> API.
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 17:58 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> You seem to have sent this email before you finished writing it.
Correct. It was late, the tone of post was heading in the wrong
direction so I gave up for the night and pressed "Save to Drafts". This
morning I discovered I had missed
Russell Stuart writes:
> On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 21:22 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Pretty sure there's no dependency on journald. I think you have to use
>> systemd's syslog passthrough if you're launching systems under systemd
>> as an init system (although I'm not 100% sure about that even), b
Hi,
Russell Stuart:
> Well you won't if you don't work on device where the
> overheads of storing it twice hurt. If they do you don't have much
> choice. You can turn off syslog, but not journald.
>
You can, however, tell journald to not store anything anywhere.
"Storage=None" in journald.conf.
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 21:22 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pretty sure there's no dependency on journald. I think you have to use
> systemd's syslog passthrough if you're launching systems under systemd as
> an init system (although I'm not 100% sure about that even), but that's
> not the same thing
Russell Stuart writes:
> Sometime, I must really get my head around what these things do. Bits
> of what follows are almost certainly wrong. Corrections welcomed.
[...]
> Part of the problem is PAM. I recall the day I was stunned to find the
> login didn't just exec the login shell (and hence
On 01/20/2015 at 08:56 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Really, the vast majority of dependencies on systemd in the archive
> are for things that want to use logind, generally indirected through
> libpam-systemd, and generally stuff that used to use ConsoleKit.
> The single most productive thing that pe
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 17:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > So apparently it's PolicyKit, not ConsoleKit, but still almost certainly
> > logind.
>
> I think that's PolicyKit wanting to use logind for something it previously
> used ConsoleKit for, and the changelog for the package seems to back that
The Wanderer writes:
> On 01/19/2015 at 11:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Christian Mueller writes:
>>> Quite a few pieces I may or may not be willing to part with but
>>> the printer driver is something I definitely need. If I had to
>>> guess, I'd say the previous udev-based script which loaded
On 01/19/2015 at 11:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christian Mueller writes:
>> Quite a few pieces I may or may not be willing to part with but
>> the printer driver is something I definitely need. If I had to
>> guess, I'd say the previous udev-based script which loaded the
>> printer firmware ha
Christian Mueller writes:
> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because
> there were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm
> using XFCE, thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
systemd (the collection of software) is required for a lot of desktop
env
On lun., 2015-01-19 at 09:13 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> The solution here would be either to convince upstreams not to depend on
> policykit, or to provide (restore?) and package a sufficiently
> functional implementation of policykit which does not depend on
> libpam-systemd.
Some people are tr
On 01/19/2015 at 07:27 AM, Tomas Tintera wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:00:04 +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
>
>> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd
>> because there were already dependencies to it which I could not
>> ignore (I'm using XFCE, thus this is
That's the problem: I don't mind systemd's way of starting and stopping
processes, that part is just fine. I just don't want the remaining bits
with all their implications, one of which is that more and more
programmers will write their code towards systems with systemd
installed. Gnome already
Hi.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:00:04 +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because there
> were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm using XFCE,
> thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
I could not speak for Debian, b
Hi Scott (and Debian at large),
I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because
there were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm
using XFCE, thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
# apt-get remove --purge --auto-remove systemd
Reading package lists..
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 07:52:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> You constant rants are getting unbearable for me.
Same here.
My email killfile consists of 6 lines.
3 of them are Svante's email addresses.
(Yes, "don't feed the troll" doesn't work. But still. *sigh*)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Ho
Le Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:55:16PM +0100, Svante Signell a écrit :
> Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
> New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for a
> non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
Svante,
your email is off-topic on thi
On November 29, 2014 12:55:16 PM EST, Svante Signell wrote:
>Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
>New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for
>a
>non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
There's been a number of blog posts recently th
Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for a
non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
Christian Mueller writes:
> Dear Debian Project,
>
> I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using
> systemd
Then don't.
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-req
On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:23:29 PM Christian Mueller wrote:
> Dear Debian Project,
>
> I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using
> systemd but recent developments made it difficult to remain impartial.
>
> Debian has always been about choice. You (Debian) have mai
On 10/02/2014 17:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com
snip
> Not really objective journalism
The byline alone is enough to deduce this. Let's not feed the trolls.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I personally would defer to the Debian press team to decide whether they
> feel we should make a public statement at this time. I think we're still
> in the middle of our process, which I understand that a lot of people
> outside the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
>
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
>> > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>>
>> Well, not only outside the project.
>>
>>
Matthew Vernon wrote at 2014-02-11 09:08 -0600:
> The split in the cttee on this issue makes me wonder whether the
> answer is "none of the proposed systems is Correct", so we should not
> tie ourselves too tightly to any particular answer just yet.
I have had exactly the same thought.
signature
Joey Hess writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
> > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>
> Well, not only outside the project.
>
> The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a c
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
>> that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>
> Well, not only outside the project.
>
> The tech ctte has always operated in
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
> that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
Well, not only outside the project.
The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a consensus
and then voting to satisf
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:26:39PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Is there any page that anybody is maintaining with live updates on the
> key points people need to know (without digging through the threads)?
Good question. Out of curiosity more than anything else, I played with
digging numbers.
On 10/02/14 17:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
Ah, Sam Barghese... Wh
On 10/02/14 19:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes:
>
>> However, when I look for an up to date summary of the situation that is
>> one of the top things revealed in Google
>
>> Other high ranking pages on the topic don't seem to be up to date:
>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/i
On Mon, February 10, 2014 18:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
Even if obj
Daniel Pocock writes:
> However, when I look for an up to date summary of the situation that is
> one of the top things revealed in Google
> Other high ranking pages on the topic don't seem to be up to date:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/
> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd
> Is th
On 10/02/14 18:45, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2014-02-10, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>>
>> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
>> lot seriously."
>>
>> Not really o
On 2014-02-10, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
It is unfortunately embarras
37 matches
Mail list logo
