On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:38:07PM +0200, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
Network initscript. This will be probably the most controversial part.
In fedora 21 we will have three different tools for networking
(initscripts, NetworkManager and systemd-networkd) and all of them
will be installed by default.
2014-04-26 11:24 GMT+02:00 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org:
Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is
specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
correctly. We do, of course, have
Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) said:
Also the sysctl stuff should be consumed by systemd:
/usr/lib/sysctl.d/00-system.conf
/etc/sysctl.conf
/etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
Can we have a joint initscripts + systemd release in a few days to
change ownership of those files?
Sounds great.
Michael Scherer (m...@zarb.org) said:
For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is
specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
correctly. We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and
explicitly say we don't care for future releases.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:51:48PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) said:
Also the sysctl stuff should be consumed by systemd:
/usr/lib/sysctl.d/00-system.conf
/etc/sysctl.conf
/etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
Can we have a joint initscripts + systemd
Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is
specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
correctly. We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and
explicitly say we don't
Am 26.04.2014 11:24, schrieb Michael Scherer:
Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
And it's not only commercial software; private projects that make no
sense to publish (such as a company's web site) are equally affected
such changes. Simply spoken, if we care
On 04/25/2014 12:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I too think that this split is a lot of work for small gain. Working
out the full dependencies set of what needs what is going to take a
while, but I think it would be better to simply shrink the package to
nothing in small steps.
I
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on someone, someplace, somewhere might be using
legacy cruff.
It's better for everybody they themselves
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on someone, someplace, somewhere might be using
On 04/25/2014 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on
Dne 25.4.2014 02:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:38:07PM +0200, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
Hi,
for the F22 I am planning some bigger changes regarding initscripts
and I would like to ask for comments.
Initscripts package was in the past a crucial part of the
Am 25.04.2014 12:58, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/25/2014 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot
Dne 25.4.2014 12:50, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on
Am 25.04.2014 13:12, schrieb Lukáš Nykrýn:
Dne 25.4.2014 12:50, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back
Dne 25.4.2014 13:24, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 13:12, schrieb Lukáš Nykrýn:
Dne 25.4.2014 12:50, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:30:00PM +0200, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
Dne 25.4.2014 13:24, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 13:12, schrieb Lukáš Nykrýn:
Dne 25.4.2014 12:50, Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 25.04.2014 12:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač
2014-04-25 12:40 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
On 04/24/2014 04:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Only those that are maintained directly inside Fedora.
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on someone, someplace, somewhere
Am 25.04.2014 19:30, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
2014-04-25 12:40 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
Which is what we care about we cannot hold back progress in the
distribution based on someone, someplace,
somewhere might be using legacy cruff.
It's better for everybody they
On 04/25/2014 05:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
That's certainly an option but it's not the only one; see the recent
Functional threads for example.
Sorry I did not want to get involved in yet another attack on our
foundation,
Last time I checked Fedora was not LSB certified nor compliant so
2014-04-26 0:37 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
On 04/25/2014 05:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
That's certainly an option but it's not the only one; see the recent
Functional threads for example.
Sorry I did not want to get involved in yet another attack on our
On 04/25/2014 10:53 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I don't think our foundations ever implied that we need or want to be
a closed ecosystem restricted to only the repository we produce. The
just don't address this.
You must understand we cannot keep back process in the distribution, be
it
Am 26.04.2014 02:01, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/25/2014 10:53 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I don't think our foundations ever implied that we need or want to be a
closed ecosystem restricted to only the
repository we produce. The just don't address this.
You must understand we
Hi,
for the F22 I am planning some bigger changes regarding initscripts and
I would like to ask for comments.
Initscripts package was in the past a crucial part of the system. They
basicaly set up whole system during the boot. Currently initscripts
package contains support for initscripts
Hello,
2014-04-24 16:38 GMT+02:00 Lukáš Nykrýn lnyk...@redhat.com:
We must keep initscripts support, but I can imagine a setup where every
service uses a systemd unit, so this part does not have to be installed by
default, but could be pulled in as a dependency.
Are you sure? If you take an
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:55:29PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
2014-04-24 16:38 GMT+02:00 Lukáš Nykrýn lnyk...@redhat.com:
We must keep initscripts support, but I can imagine a setup where every
service uses a systemd unit, so this part does not have to be installed by
default,
2014-04-24 18:13 GMT+02:00 Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:55:29PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
2014-04-24 16:38 GMT+02:00 Lukáš Nykrýn lnyk...@redhat.com:
We must keep initscripts support, but I can imagine a setup where every
service uses a
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:38:07PM +0200, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
Hi,
for the F22 I am planning some bigger changes regarding initscripts
and I would like to ask for comments.
Initscripts package was in the past a crucial part of the system.
They basicaly set up whole system during the boot.
28 matches
Mail list logo
