On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:31:15PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 14:07, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >> No, what I find annoying is telling volunteer what they have to do
> >> without doing anything yourself on the issues you raise and repeating
> >> "don't b
On 10/16/2014 14:07, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> No, what I find annoying is telling volunteer what they have to do
>> without doing anything yourself on the issues you raise and repeating
>> "don't break Linux" endlessly. I think everybody knows by now you
>> believe that, t
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Litt writes:
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Litt writes:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
free to take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my
family) an
On Jo, 16 oct 14, 07:31:56, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/16 5:59 "Andrei POPESCU" :
> >
> > The problem with this approach is that it's not fine-grained enough,
> > i.e. it can't distinguish between users logged in locally or via ssh.
> > This means Mallory could easily spy on Alice remotely, just by
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:33:38 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
> > of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
> > free to take significant time ou
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
wrote:
> wande...@fastmail.fm:
> > I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all
> > of
> > the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
> > not positive I even know how many there are, much
Steve Litt writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Steve Litt writes:
>> > OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
>> > of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
>> > free to take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my
>> > family) and re
2014/10/16 15:34 "Jonathan Dowland" :
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
> > ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
> > take significant time out of my day job (that
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:10:47 +0200
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Steve Litt writes:
> > OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
> > of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
> > free to take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my
> > famil
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
> ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
> take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my family) and
> rescue all sorts of soft
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
wrote:
> wande...@fastmail.fm:
> > I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all
> > of
> > the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
> > not positive I even know how many there are, much
Steve Litt writes:
> OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
> ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
> take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my family) and
> rescue all sorts of software that Red Hat deliberately scuttled.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:27:20 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
> > > after systemd-logind came along.
> >
> > I rest my case.
>
> There's nothing at all (not even Re
On 10/15/2014 07:54 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/hostnamed/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/timedated/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/localed/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/
These RPC
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:53:36AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/16 8:14 "Chris Bannister" :
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > >
> > > I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
> > > is a spoke, you don't construct an interface
wande...@fastmail.fm:
I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all of
> the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
> not positive I even know how many there are, much less all of their
> names.
This should help:
Put yourself in the position of som
2014/10/16 8:14 "Chris Bannister" :
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
> > is a spoke, you don't construct an interface to a whole wheel just to
> > get your spoke.
>
> A wise old owl lived i
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
> is a spoke, you don't construct an interface to a whole wheel just to
> get your spoke.
A wise old owl lived in an oak
The more he saw the less he spoke
The les
2014/10/16 5:59 "Andrei POPESCU" :
>
> On Mi, 15 oct 14, 09:46:47, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that the answer is "they just didn't provide the functionality
> > which ConsoleKit, and later systemd-logind, now enable them to provide",
> > but I'm not aware - in a clear-understanding, defi
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
> Martin Read wrote:
>
> > On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > > And how were they handling this task before systemd?
> >
> > They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 09:46:47, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I suspect that the answer is "they just didn't provide the functionality
> which ConsoleKit, and later systemd-logind, now enable them to provide",
> but I'm not aware - in a clear-understanding, defined-boundaries sense -
> of exactly what that
Martin Read writes:
(snip)
> * The set of people hostile to systemd seems to include a lot of people
> who don't see much need for the likes of ConsoleKit either.
(snip)
This is actually a rather good point. The machines I am most
conservative about, and wanting to make sure that they boot well
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:22:55AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> ConsoleKit has been fixed for kFreeBSD build, I expect fixing it in
> normal Debian/GNU wouldn't have been harder than choosing systemd.
It really needs (needed) adopting upstream, not just in Debian, because it's
upstream where p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/10/2014 6:49 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> reported bugs will get less attention nowtoo). But the consolekit
> deprecation happened a long time before the tech-ctte decision
> about systemd. Some one/people could have picked it up long ago.
> I
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> In theory. But in practice, folks make practical decisions as to
> expenditure of time and resources. For example, once Debian
> committed to systemd, Ubuntu followed suit - I expect that upstart
> will promptly whither and die.
Y
On 15/10/14 17:30, Steve Litt wrote:
Pre-cisely. I see Red Hat's fingerprints all over that unmaintained
status. If not for Red Hat, somebody would have picked up ConsoleKit.
After all, as shown in
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/whos-writing-linux ,
there's plenty of money floating a
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
There's nothing at all (not even Red Hat) preventing anyone (even you!) from
stepping up and ta
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
> > after systemd-logind came along.
>
> I rest my case.
There's nothing at all (not even Red Hat) preventing anyone (even you!) from
stepping up and taking over devel
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
> > And how were they handling this task before systemd?
>
> They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
> after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
SteveT
Steve Litt
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:02:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 17:56:58, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > Because you don't want to inextricably drag a giant monolith into
> > your Desktop Environment just to do a few things.
>
> If you compare systemd with a Desktop Environment I'm not
On 10/14/2014 at 04:15 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this
>> issue be a case in which significant concerns from/of the users
>> about an issue might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak l
On 10/15/2014 at 04:08 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
>> wrote:
>>> And it also seems to make sense (why should every Desktop
>>> Environment implement it's own solution for this?).
>> And how were they handl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/10/2014 6:02 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> ConsoleKit, unmaintained.
But fixed, for kFreeBSD
A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ+ZOQACgkQqBZry7fv4vtv5gEAqxefTmCV1PLqwNWgJOGeFwGD
zc00RNvDgol9E3
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
As far as I understand none of the upstreams are actually requiring
systemd itself (or more accurately systemd-logind), but the
interfaces it is providing.
I fail to see the distinction.
As long as
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 22:56:15, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> Not to mention that just offhand I'm not sure I'd even know how to turn
> off basic tab completion - whereas turning off programmable tab
> completion is pretty much just a matter of not sourcing the
> tab-completion files in the effective bash e
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 17:56:58, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Because you don't want to inextricably drag a giant monolith into your
> Desktop Environment just to do a few things.
If you compare systemd with a Desktop Environment I'm not quite sure
who's the giant ;)
> And how were they handling
> this tas
On 15/10/14 06:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 15/10/14 03:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 3:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> Well I guess I'd find it a lot cleaner to make the choice as part of
> installation, rather than have systemd installed as a default and then
> have to uninstall it. I hate unwin
On 10/14/2014 at 08:02 PM, lee wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
>> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That
>> interferes with my workflow
>
> Are you actually using this completion stuff? It always gets into
> my wa
On 10/14/2014 at 04:35 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 09:55:55, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> I could, but that would have to be re-done on every upgrade of the
>> package, and doing it on every machine where I'm likely to want to
>> work in a root shell would be a pain at best - and d
On 10/14/2014 6:50 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Martin Read writes:
>>>
On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
>> be seconded by at least 5
Olav Vitters writes:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
>> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this issue be
>> a case in which significant concerns from/of the users about an issue
>> might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak loudly for Debian and its way
The Wanderer writes:
> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That interferes
> with my workflow
Are you actually using this completion stuff? It always gets into my
way and I keep it disabled or removed.
--
Again we
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
>> Martin Read writes:
>>
>>> On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
Bas Wijnen writes:
> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
> be seconded by at least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7).
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> ask questions anyway. But I, and I imagine many of my DD colleagues, are
> particularly interested in ensuring -user is a useful resource for our users,
> and by filtering out people, we don't get a clear picture of just how broken
> the list is.
There is a lot of tole
Steve Litt writes:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:50:32 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Joey Hess writes:
>>
>> > So at this point, most of us are pretty tired of the subject.
>>
>> And just ignore it and the consequences because you're tired of
>> thinking about it?
>
> Lee, he has a point. He sees nothin
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:31:04, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > Of course, then there's the matters of upstreams requiring
> > systemd...
>
> As far as I understand none of the upstreams are actually requiring
> systemd itself (or more accuratel
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:31:04, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Of course, then there's the matters of upstreams requiring systemd...
As far as I understand none of the upstreams are actually requiring
systemd itself (or more accurately systemd-logind), but the interfaces
it is providing. And it also seems t
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 09:55:55, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I could, but that would have to be re-done on every upgrade of the
> package, and doing it on every machine where I'm likely to want to work
> in a root shell would be a pain at best - and doing it on just some of
> them would result in my trippi
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 15:51:09, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> Sadly not. If I were reading -user entirely for my own delectation, I'd have
> filtered many regulars long ago. Or simply stopped reading it, since I rarely
> ask questions anyway. But I, and I imagine many of my DD colleagues, are
> particul
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:35:34 +0100
Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 16:48, Steve Litt wrote:
> > So are you saying I could use sysvinit or nosh as my PID1, drop in
> > libpam-systemd and no other systemd components, and have all PAM
> > functionalities run properly?
>
> Thank you for the clarifi
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this issue be
> a case in which significant concerns from/of the users about an issue
> might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak loudly for Debian and its ways
> and for what it stands f
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:03:07, Martin Read wrote:
>
> [0] I've seen the relevant fragment posted recently, but I can't remember
> where and I don't remember the exact contents.
Package: systemd-sysv
Pin: version *
Pin-Priority: -1
Explanation: prevent installation of systemd-sysv
'P
Hi,
The Wanderer writes:
> Unfortunately, not everyone - or even everyone who would be willing to
> provide such feedback, or even actively interested in doing so - is
> going to install that.
Luckily, popcon is opt-in anyway, so this has no effect whatsoever on
it's quality as a data source.
B
On Tue, 10/14/14, Brian wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 12:22 PM
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 10:47:13 -0500, goli...@riseup.net wrote:
On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 14:22:03 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> >Depends what you mean by "supported". There is no problem in installing
> >sysvinit after an upgrade or before upgrading. It works really well.
>
> "No problem" is easier to say than to validate.
>
> First off, there's
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/10/14 03:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:27:14AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
> > took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
> > network interfaces.
>
> And which resulte
Brian wrote:
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:33:06 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
I'm guessing you really don't want an OS without logging... :)
syslog works just fine - don't need (or want) systemd to take over
logging with a binary format
The journal logs to rsyslog by default
On 15/10/14 03:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Gee assuming that you
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:33:06 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >I'm guessing you really don't want an OS without logging... :)
>
> syslog works just fine - don't need (or want) systemd to take over
> logging with a binary format
The journal logs to rsyslog by default on De
On 14/10/14 16:48, Steve Litt wrote:
So are you saying I could use sysvinit or nosh as my PID1, drop in
libpam-systemd and no other systemd components, and have all PAM
functionalities run properly?
Thank you for the clarification.
The short and vague answer is "no"; PAM modules that depend on
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 10:47:13 -0500, goli...@riseup.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 1:56 AM
>
> You are still writing as i
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
dependencies
and/or systemd-shim
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 04:29:50 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:50:32 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> >
> > > Joey Hess writes:
> > >
> > > > So at this point, most of us are pretty tired of the subject.
> > >
> > >
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
> dependencies
> and/or systemd-s
On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 1:56 AM
You are still writing as if you are going to be forced to run systemd,
despite
being repeatedly told that multiple init
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:37:30 +0100
Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 15:56, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
> >
> > PAM is enough for me, considering everything that uses PAM. They
> > c
On 14/10/14 15:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
PAM is enough for me, considering everything that uses PAM. They could
have made their PAM plug compatible with the old PAM, but nooo.
I f
On 14/10/14 16:06, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> 1) Boycott (and be vocal about it) Gnome
>
> 2) Pressure all other upstreams into a "no systemd dependencies"
>pledge, and to the best of our abilities, boycott (and be vocal about
>it) those who don't comply.
>
Well, you should have no problem w
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:50:32 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
> > Joey Hess writes:
> >
> > > So at this point, most of us are pretty tired of the subject.
> >
> > And just ignore it and the consequences because you're tired of
> > thinking abo
On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
> took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
> network interfaces.
And which resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:46:11PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I assume you find it more productive to bury your head in the sand
about potential impacts of really major changes to the plumbing of a
platform, and wait for things to break after-the-fact?
I suspect Steve
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Hi Miles,
On 10/14/2014 16:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Actually, udev is the ONLY thing I've had issues with in over a decade
of production use. Changed out a nic card, and everything changed -
because udev decided to assign the new interface to some other port (or
some s
On 15/10/14 01:51, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>> The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a minority,
>> he could filter us all out and never see our posts again. Problem
>> solved.
>
> Sadly not. If I were reading -user
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:51:09 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a
> > minority, he could filter us all out and never see our posts again.
> > Problem solved.
>
> Sadly not. If
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:33:56 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 10:40:34, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > On 14/10/2014 9:50 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8
> > > (jessie) release of Debian. So you can continue to boot your
> > > p
Hi Miles,
On 10/14/2014 16:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Actually, udev is the ONLY thing I've had issues with in over a decade
> of production use. Changed out a nic card, and everything changed -
> because udev decided to assign the new interface to some other port (or
> some such - it's been a w
On 14/10/14 14:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Which brings us back to how upgrades and new installs will be handled -
will there be an option to go right to sysvinit-core, or will we have to
manually uninstall systemd and anything that depends on it? Getting all
the metapackages and dependencies righ
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >
> > Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
> > dependencies and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept
> > up-to-date.
>
> Have you actually looked in
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:56:17 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> You are still writing as if you are going to be forced to run
> systemd, despite being repeatedly told that multiple init systems
> will be supported. I'm really struggling to continue to presume "good
> faith" on your part now.
Hi Jo
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
dependencies
and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
Have you actually l
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a minority,
> he could filter us all out and never see our posts again. Problem
> solved.
Sadly not. If I were reading -user entirely for my own delectation, I'd have
filtered
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:50:32 +0200
lee wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
>
> > So at this point, most of us are pretty tired of the subject.
>
> And just ignore it and the consequences because you're tired of
> thinking about it?
Lee, he has a point. He sees nothing wrong with a Red Hat owned and
co
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
>>> dependencies
>>> and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
>> Have you actually looked in
On 10/14/2014 at 09:44 AM, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:08:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
>> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That
>> interferes with my workflow to the point that I've reluctant
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:08:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That interferes
> with my workflow to the point that I've reluctantly decided to just not
> install popcon - with the un
On 10/14/2014 at 09:26 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>> Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
>>
>> Trying to.
>>
>> As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to
>> mind;
>
> Strictly speakin
Martin Read wrote:
On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to mind;
Strictly speaking, yes, udev is part of the systemd suite. However, it
i
On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to mind;
Strictly speaking, yes, udev is part of the systemd suite. However, it
is perfectly capable
On 10/13/2014 at 01:01 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to
>> remain on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should
>> also turn out
>
> Which, I should add, i
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd dependencies
and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start - a
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 10:40:34, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 14/10/2014 9:50 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8
> > (jessie) release of Debian. So you can continue to boot your
> > production servers with sysvinit.
>
> Okay, for now, that is until mo
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 19:46:11, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Of course Joey is correct regarding trying out systemd on a test server.
> Personally, though, I find it a lot MORE productive to keep track of other
> people's experience in testing things, and deploy after a release is really,
> really stable
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Joey Hess wrote:
(snip)
>> A reasonably proactive admin would probably want to try out systemd (on
>> eg, a test server) and if it causes problems for their deployment, they
>> then have at least the year or two from when Debian jessie is released
>> until the *next* rele
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd dependencies
> and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.or
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
> You put me in an awkward position. My email was an attempt to get
> this discussion shut down on -devel, where it is off-topic and a total
> waste of energy.
>
In that case, you did a poor job of getting this point across.
(I misinterpreted it too.)
> But your response, using
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:46:11PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> I assume you find it more productive to bury your head in the sand
> about potential impacts of really major changes to the plumbing of a
> platform, and wait for things to break after-the-fact?
I suspect Steve will continue to work
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
1. Whether or not there's a clear statement regarding the installer - will
users be presented with a clear choice of init systems during installation,
or is it going to be left to folks to figure out how to work around the
default installation of systemd?
Marty wrote:
On 10/13/2014 07:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian --
the need to
do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debia
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
