On 25/09/14 03:43, Brian wrote:
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
This is the Red Hat
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
I nearly choked on my coffee reading that. Redhat built their business on
Linux; GNU have been hostile towards
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:30:22AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
I nearly choked on my coffee reading
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:30:22AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful to Linux
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:30:22 +0100
Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:58:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
I nearly choked on my coffee
Hi.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
never have.
Or did they?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
This is the Red Hat Conspiracy Theory. Does the promotion
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:16:26 +0400
Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their
compiler to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so
years ago. They never have.
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 14:01:04 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:16:26 +0400
Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:33:35PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their
compiler to reduce the
On 09/24/2014 01:43 PM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
This is the Red Hat
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:07:08PM +0100, Brian wrote:
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 12:58:26 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
=== Depending on glibc ===
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful to Linux than the agenda of Redhat.
Misinformation.
On 09/24/2014 02:45 PM, Brian wrote:
Chanting Red Hat Conspirancy to yourself before falling into a deep
slumber is one thing. Convincing most other people it exists is a task
which requires a little bit more.
FUD alert
Let's see, the real goal of systemd has nothing to do with init or
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
and the replacement did not fix it. A modular system has to support
all init systems, including systemd, clones and
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:11:03PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
and the replacement did not fix it. A modular
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
and the replacement did not
Le 23/09/2014 18:58, Steve Litt a écrit :
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s
On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:54:44 Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:11:03PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 12:58:26 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:11:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's discuss your analogies...
=== Depending on glibc ===
True, it's a single point of failure, but it's made by GNU, whose
agenda is less harmful
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 13:40:02 -0400, Mike McGinn wrote:
On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:54:44 Chris Bannister wrote:
I just had a look and didn't realise how closely Debian is reliant on the
C language! Surely, this can't be good!
The entire kernel is written in C. A language is
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 19:30:34 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
Compare it to to a init system which is the main reason to choose a
desktop environment...
See
http://www.webupd8.org/2014/09/debian-switches-back-to-gnome-from-xfce.html
So sytemd does in fact orient *everything*. You are not
Le 23/09/2014 20:46, Brian a écrit :
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 19:30:34 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
Compare it to to a init system which is the main reason to choose a
desktop environment...
See
http://www.webupd8.org/2014/09/debian-switches-back-to-gnome-from-xfce.html
So sytemd does in fact
On Tue 23 Sep 2014 at 21:09:30 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
Le 23/09/2014 20:46, Brian a écrit :
You do not like that systemd will be the default init system for Jessie.
Tough. Exercise your choice not to have it. Or is easier to moan rather
than just get on with using sysvinit?
As for
On 09/23/2014 12:11 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 22 sep 14, 21:17:28, Marty wrote:
1) The goal is modular Debian. Multi-init is the means to achieve
it. Being tied to one init system is what caused Debian’s problems,
and the replacement did not fix it. A modular system has to support
all
Hi Rob,
I saw the bug closed (via mail on -devel) and personally thought it shouldn't
have been. However when considering next steps my advice would be to leave bugs
alone for a short while and let things cool off.
It's important and useful to file bugs, but that in and of itself doesn't solve
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
maintaining it).
So who is going to step forward and start maintaining it?
Nobody needs to.
On 09/22/2014 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
maintaining it).
So who is
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:12:52PM CEST, Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com said:
On 09/22/2014 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/22/2014 at 05:39 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 22.09.2014 01:51, John Hasler a écrit :
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces
(and systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of
On 09/22/2014 05:07 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Hi Rob,
I saw the bug closed (via mail on -devel) and personally thought it shouldn't
have been. However when considering next steps my advice would be to leave bugs
alone for a short while and let things cool off.
It's important and useful to
Looking for advice from people in the know...
I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing your
init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
Debian's goals of supporting multiple init systems. The bug was closed
without fixing in a matter of hours.
Rob Owens writes:
I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing
your init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
Debian's goals of supporting multiple init systems.
No, it doesn't. Any individual package can depend on any other package.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 12:12 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Rob Owens writes:
I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require
changing your init system to systemd. I pointed out that this
runs counter to Debian's goals of supporting multiple
On 21/09/14 15:48, Rob Owens wrote:
The bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762116
I think I agree with John Hasler in:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/09/msg01430.html
that much of this is a matter of Debian package dependencies reflecting
dependencies of the
The Wanderer writes:
Filing bugs about that against the packages which depend on that
functionality, as advised in the mail closing the bug which this
thread is about, is not productive; they don't control what provides
the functionality they need.
What did those packages do for that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
The Wanderer writes:
Filing bugs about that against the packages which depend on that
functionality, as advised in the mail closing the bug which this
thread is about, is not productive; they
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 10:48:51 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
Looking for advice from people in the know...
I submitted a general bug regarding packages which require changing your
init system to systemd. I pointed out that this runs counter to
Debian's goals of supporting multiple init systems.
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 18:08:58 +0100, Martin Read wrote:
As far as the Debian-related aspects of the matter are concerned, it
seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to file bugs against
sysvinit-core and upstart suggesting that they should have a
Recommends: reference to systemd-shim.
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 14:40:13 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
What did those packages do for that functionality before systemd
existed?
According to my understanding, either they depended on policykit (which
used to provide such, or at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2014 at 06:05 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 14:40:13 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 09/21/2014 at 01:37 PM, John Hasler wrote:
What did those packages do for that functionality before
systemd existed?
According to my
On 21/09/14 23:47, The Wanderer wrote:
I did mean policykit, but that's because I was talking about my
understanding, which does have policykit in that slot. My understanding
may well be wrong, and if so, consolekit may very well be what *should*
go in that slot instead.
consolekit is indeed
Martin Read writes:
consolekit is indeed the thing that systemd-logind replaces (and
systemd-logind was the reason the maintainers of consolekit stopped
maintaining it).
So who is going to step forward and start maintaining it?
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To
41 matches
Mail list logo
