Am 11.11.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org:
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 12.34:10 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
(…)
I'm not particularly interested in testing how well install/replace
systemd and its dependencies works in our environment (both hypervisor
level or guest
Am 12.11.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net:
Yes, I am unhappy with the situation, as apparently are a not-insignificant
number of other Debian users. One could hope that feedback might have some
effect in influencing future decisions. That it has not, or if
Amodelo wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org:
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 12.34:10 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
(…)
I'm not particularly interested in testing how well install/replace
systemd and its dependencies works in our environment (both hypervisor
Amodelo wrote:
Am 12.11.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net:
Yes, I am unhappy with the situation, as apparently are a not-insignificant
number of other Debian users. One could hope that feedback might have some
effect in influencing future decisions. That it has
On 11/12/2014 5:18 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mi, 12 nov 14, 15:43:09, Tanstaafl wrote:
Sounds good to me, but in reality, since the default *and only* init
system for the last very many years was Sysvinit (this extremely salient
point seems to be completely and
Le jeudi, 13 novembre 2014, 09.04:50 Tanstaafl a écrit :
It should have been made mandatory that the systemd folks get this bug
fully resolved and functional *on wheezy*
This is simply not how Debian works; stable is meant to stay stable.
*and* commit to maintaining this ability in jessie, as
On Jo, 13 nov 14, 10:49:44, Amodelo wrote:
I am also not interested in testing an ugly work-around (install
unwanted A, replace it by B). My servers seem to have similar
configurations like those of Miles Fidelman.
I definitely want a straight upgrade path with a minimum of problems,
On Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 10:49:44 +0100, Amodelo wrote:
I am also not interested in testing an ugly work-around (install
unwanted A, replace it by B). My servers seem to have similar
configurations like those of Miles Fidelman.
Considering that the Holy Grail of fixing #668001 for Jessie is
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 11/12/2014 5:18 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mi, 12 nov 14, 15:43:09, Tanstaafl wrote:
Sounds good to me, but in reality, since the default *and only* init
system for the last very many
On Ma, 11 nov 14, 18:25:03, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Ma, 11 nov 14, 12:34:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed
On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Actually, there's a patch (thank you Kenshi). It has not been applied.
Hence, to use it right now, one has to build a custom version of the
installer. I hope, that post the initial Jessie release, the deboostrap
and
On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition,
they do not care. They want Debian. Please let them have it.
Wow... what arrogance...
That is
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Actually, there's a patch (thank you Kenshi). It has not been applied.
Hence, to use it right now, one has to build a custom version of the
installer. I hope, that post the initial Jessie release, the
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition,
they do not care. They want Debian. Please let them have it.
Wow... what
Le Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:10:55 -0500,
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org a écrit :
On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
Actually, there's a patch (thank you Kenshi). It has not been
applied. Hence, to use it right now, one has to build a custom
version
On 11/12/2014 9:02 AM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org wrote:
So like Michael said, Jessie will indeed be the first
version that allows you to have an alternate init without modifying the
kernel cmdline.
Which is precisely *why* the systemd proponents should have been
required to fix that
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not how Debian works.
OdyX
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not how Debian works.
You mean a bug can't be marked as release critical?
Miles Fidelman
--
To
On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not how Debian works.
If Debian works in such a way that the Tech
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 10.17:54 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not how Debian works.
You mean a
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 23:18:56 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/11/2014 at 01:51 PM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:58:25 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Brian wrote:
Everyone gets it. Not everyone boots with it. Not everyone who
boots first time with it gets to use it on
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 10.33:20 Tanstaafl a écrit :
On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not
On Wed, 11/12/14, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Subject: Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014, 5:10 AM
On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
Actually, there's a patch (thank you
On 11/12/2014 at 10:43 AM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 23:18:56 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
systemd being the default init system can/could mean many
different things.
One of those things would mean that all of the things you say must
necessarily be true. That possible meaning is
On 11/12/2014 10:40 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
I can't insist enough on this: the Debian procedures have been correctly
followed; the TC took a decision which could be challenged by a simple
majority GR [0]. This GR has never been called by anyone with voting
rights, or
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 10.17:54 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
that bug (…)
This is simply not how Debian
The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/12/2014 at 10:43 AM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 23:18:56 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
systemd being the default init system can/could mean many
different things.
One of those things would mean that all of the things you say must
necessarily be true. That
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:14:34 -0500
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
One could hope that feedback might have some effect in influencing future
decisions. That it has not, or if anything rigidified the Direction of
Debian, is in itself, rather useful information when it comes
On Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 10:56:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/12/2014 at 10:43 AM, Brian wrote:
The reality is that d-i in jessie installs systemd. I labelled this
reality with the phrase default init system. I could change to
using another phrase but it will not alter the reality.
On Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 06:27:56 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition,
they do not care. They want Debian.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:10:42PM +, Brian wrote:
Sounds like, doesn't it? Let's be practical and see how how a screen in
d-i could present an init system choice to a user, particularly having a
new user in mind.
Well, like the question about bootloaders the init system choice should
On 11/12/2014 3:10 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
On Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 06:27:56 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed.
Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 20.10:42 Brian a écrit :
Sounds like, doesn't it? Let's be practical and see how how a screen
in d-i could present an init system choice to a user, particularly
having a new user in mind.
For what is worth, the layout of the menu is not the problem here.
Cheers,
On Mi, 12 nov 14, 12:14:34, Miles Fidelman wrote:
(As someone else
said - hope that LFS extends Wheezy's lifetime.
Assuming you actually meant LTS, hope is not sufficient. From
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
Companies using Debian who are interested in aiding this effort
should help
On Mi, 12 nov 14, 15:43:09, Tanstaafl wrote:
Sounds good to me, but in reality, since the default *and only* init
system for the last very many years was Sysvinit (this extremely salient
point seems to be completely and totally lost on the systemd
proponents), I think only systemd and
Once upon a time Tanstaafl wrote:
Yes, the procedures may have been correctly followed... but apparently
it took something as major as forcing a major change (init system) to
reveal the flaws in the procedures.
What really surprised me as I try to piece together what has happened
to my dear
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:14:34 -0500
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
One could hope that feedback might have some effect in influencing future
decisions. That it has not, or if anything rigidified the Direction of Debian,
is in itself, rather useful
On Lu, 10 nov 14, 21:12:10, Lee Winter wrote:
Of all the options available in the NON-expert installer, the choice of
init alternatives might not warrant a user selection option, but all of the
_consequences_ of that selection, i.e., things that get sucked in, mandate
that users be offered a
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 02:02:07 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 01:58 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Sorry, but that is not what I asked for. I asked for specifics.
Your answer doesn't contain any specific problem which would make me
able to reproduce any
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 18:11:42 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 14:48:15 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:47:35 +0200,
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Lu, 10 nov 14, 21:12:10, Lee Winter wrote:
Of all the options available in the NON-expert installer, the
choice of init alternatives might not warrant a user selection
option, but all of the
Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 02:02:07 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 01:58 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Sorry, but that is not what I asked for. I asked for specifics.
Your answer doesn't contain any specific problem which would make me
able to reproduce
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later
On 11/10/2014 6:32 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Optional? Yes. A lot (most) of systemd is optional. (So, I've read.)
But isn't a lot of that optional stuff installed by default?
It is, yes. We decided to not split up a 10M package
On 11/10/2014 6:23 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
systemd-networkd is an entirely optional component, you don't have to
use it.
systemd-udevd is also an individual component, which btw is also used
under sysvinit (or upstart). You don't
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 07:33:44 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Brian wrote:
Placing the bar so high at clean for the reason given is unwarranted,
especially if preseeding with
d-i base-installer/includes string sysvinit-core
is done. Then systemd-sysv is cleanly removed during the
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 07:42:33 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any
Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 07:42:33 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus
On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 07:42:33 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Please be specific. What problems of of dependencies are you
talking about?
Please stop bring up irrelevant questions and address
On 11/11/2014 11:38 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Other people subscribe to a meaning of default which, e.g., assumes
only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is
taken to prevent it from getting so installed. That seems like an
entirely reasonable
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 11:38 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Other people subscribe to a meaning of default which, e.g., assumes
only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is
taken to prevent it from getting so installed. That seems like an
entirely
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:42:33 -0500,
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org a écrit :
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in
such a way that systemd is never
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:42:33 -0500,
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org a écrit :
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in
such a way
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:42:33 -0500,
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org a écrit :
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 11:38:19 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote:
systemd is the default init system. That means everyone gets it.
No - that only means that everyone gets it by default, not necessarily
that everyone gets it.
Everyone gets it. Not everyone
Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 11:38:19 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote:
systemd is the default init system. That means everyone gets it.
No - that only means that everyone gets it by default, not necessarily
that everyone gets it.
Everyone gets it.
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 12.34:10 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
No, that's NOT a fact. At least
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:00:23 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 11:38 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Other people subscribe to a meaning of default which, e.g., assumes
only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is
taken to prevent it from getting
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
Irrelevant.
Allowing the user to choose this at install time
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:58:25 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Brian wrote:
Everyone gets it. Not everyone boots with it. Not everyone who boots
first time with it gets to use it on subsequent boots.
That is DEFINITELY a definition of default that is subject to very
differing opinions.
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
Allowing the user to
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 13:14:00 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
On 11-11-2014 21:16, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a
Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote:
On 11-11-2014 21:16, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where
On Ma, 11 nov 14, 12:34:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
No, that's NOT a fact. At least it's not a tested
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Ma, 11 nov 14, 12:34:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.
No, that's NOT a fact. At
On 11/11/2014 at 01:51 PM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:58:25 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Brian wrote:
Everyone gets it. Not everyone boots with it. Not everyone who
boots first time with it gets to use it on subsequent boots.
That is DEFINITELY a definition of default that
On 11/11/2014 02:16 PM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is
2014/11/12 3:09 Didier apos;OdyXapos; Raboud o...@debian.org:
Le mardi, 11 novembre 2014, 12.34:10 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
Joel == Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com writes:
Joel It's the same thing. You think you have something wonderful and we
aren't
Joel buying it.
That's the beauty of it: you don't have to buy it. You're free to do
whatever you want: contribute bug reports, patches for your choice of
init,
On Du, 09 nov 14, 22:32:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Is it possible, systemd dependency issues aside, to do a clean install
of Jessie with an init other than systemd without first installing
systemd? And, if so, how would one do it?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668001
Kind
Am 10.11.2014 um 07:32 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Is it possible, systemd dependency issues aside, to do a clean install
of Jessie with an init other than systemd without first installing
systemd? And, if so, how would one do it?
Everything I've read so far talks about replacing systemd on
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 07:32 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Is it possible, systemd dependency issues aside, to do a clean
install of Jessie with an init other than systemd without first
installing systemd? And, if so, how would one do it?
Everything I've
Am 10.11.2014 um 17:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
You can use pre-seeding and run
preseed/late_command=in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core
in the debian-installer. While that does indeed first install
systemd-sysv, it's directly replaced again
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Du, 09 nov 14, 22:32:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Is it possible, systemd dependency issues aside, to do a clean
install of Jessie with an init other than systemd without first
installing systemd? And, if so, how would one do it?
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 17:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
You can use pre-seeding and run
preseed/late_command=in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core
in the debian-installer. While that does indeed first
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
Up until now you were forced to use sysvinit.
People seem to forget that.
--
Why is it that
On 10.11.2014 20:28, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
Up until now you were forced to use sysvinit.
Am 10.11.2014 um 20:08 schrieb Jarle Aase:
What I don't like about systemd, is that it insists on doing things I
don't want it to do. I don't want /it/ to control the network or udev,
systemd-networkd is an entirely optional component, you don't have to
use it.
systemd-udevd is also an
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
Up until now you were forced to use sysvinit.
People seem to forget
On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 14:48:15 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 14:44:22 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
Up until
Brian wrote:
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 14:48:15 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is
Brian wrote:
On Mon 10 Nov 2014 at 14:44:22 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later uninstallation all the
dependencies that systemd brings in with it.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 20:08 schrieb Jarle Aase:
What I don't like about systemd, is that it insists on doing things
I don't want it to do. I don't want /it/ to control the network or
udev,
systemd-networkd is an entirely optional component, you
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 20:08 schrieb Jarle Aase:
What I don't like about systemd, is that it insists on doing things
I don't want it to do. I don't want /it/ to control the network or
udev,
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later uninstallation all the
dependencies that systemd
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such
a way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later uninstallation all the
dependencies that systemd brings in with it.
If you
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:43 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such
a way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later uninstallation all the
dependencies that systemd brings
Am 11.11.2014 um 01:52 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such
a way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might result from later
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:43 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that
Am 11.11.2014 um 01:58 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:43 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in
such a
way that systemd is never
Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.11.2014 um 01:52 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such
a way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
problems that might
2014/11/11 3:29 Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org:
Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
an alternative init.
Up until now you were forced to use
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 10.11.2014 um 17:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
You can use pre-seeding and run
preseed/late_command=in-target apt-get
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I expressed a judgement that, based on experience, there are potential
problems with installing and then uninstalling a piece of software
with complicated dependencies, that would be avoided by doing a clean
install. I did NOT say that I'd tested that
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I expressed a judgement that, based on experience, there are potential
problems with installing and then uninstalling a piece of software
with complicated dependencies, that would be avoided by doing a clean
install. I did NOT say
101 - 200 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
