On 05/29/2013 09:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
There are a couple of other possible approaches...
1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e.
no identically-named files with different contents) then simply
have 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:54:38 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/05/13 02:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:22:32 -0500 William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We could probably also turn gcc-config into an
On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:52:58 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
In order for a different init system to come up, some file(s)
somewhere *MUST* be different, no ifs/ands/ors/buts.
How true is this in general? It is usually only a change of the init
parameter.
Where is
On 05/29/2013 10:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
There are a couple of other possible approaches...
1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e. no
identically-named files with different contents) then simply have 2
On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:52:58 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
If users can already do it themselves, then why this entire thread?
Why do we need eselect/whatever?
The big argument in favour of eselect is that when the procedure for
switching things changes, there's no need to
Tom Wijsman wrote:
For the same reason we have all the other eselect modules.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/eselect/
Ironically, that project description even mentions init system... :)
As someone else pointed out, not the same thing. Quoting:
William Hubbs wrote:
Yes, but the init system
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:22:32 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
For the same reason we have all the other eselect modules.
We could probably also turn gcc-config into an eselect module if we
want to use that argument.
Looking at Duncan's reply, that has already happened in the
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:22:32 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We could probably also turn gcc-config into an eselect module if we
want to use that argument.
Someone did, but unfortunately gcc-config is a big pile of poorly
understood voodoo, so eclectic gcc ended up being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/05/13 02:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:22:32 -0500 William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We could probably also turn gcc-config into an eselect module if
we want to use that argument.
Someone did, but
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:35:22AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Remember that eselect init is optional and an opt-in by emerging it,
this is in no way suggested anywhere to become a default on all systems.
Ok, that's cool then, I just would hate to see it become a default.
William
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:36:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
3b) Except... at that point root isn't writable
Let me stop you here. Does it need to be writable at that point?
We're reading the path of the init file to boot from a file, we start
the executable at that path; no
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:36:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
3b) Except... at that point root isn't writable
Let me stop you here. Does it need to be writable at that point?
We're reading the path of the init
On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:15:54 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
In order for a different init system to come up, some file(s)
somewhere *MUST* be different, no ifs/ands/ors/buts.
How true is this in general? It is usually only a change of the init
parameter. As far as I heard there
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
There are a couple of other possible approaches...
1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e. no
identically-named files with different contents) then simply have 2
boot entries in /etc/lilo.conf (or grub
On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:55:23 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We want to make this easier towards the user, therefore doing heavy
discussion to exhaust all the alternatives and maybe someone's
interested in implementing one of them that appears most feasible.
Since users
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:06:42AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:55:23 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We want to make this easier towards the user, therefore doing heavy
discussion to exhaust all the alternatives and maybe someone's
interested in
William Hubbs posted on Wed, 29 May 2013 19:22:32 -0500 as excerpted:
We could probably also turn gcc-config into an eselect module if we want
to use that argument.
IIRC it actually was, at one point. The eselect gcc module even allowed
separate configs for 32-bit and 64-bit on at least
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
In order for a different init system to come up, some file(s)
somewhere *MUST* be different, no ifs/ands/ors/buts.
How true is this in general? It is usually only a change of the init
Walter Dnes posted on Mon, 27 May 2013 18:40:21 -0400 as excerpted:
What does this accomplish that could not be accomplished by...
* placing a switcher script in /sbin
* booting to single-user mode, and running the switcher script
FWIW I agree with you.
In part my post was to make it
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:56:49 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
In part my post was to make it obvious that's really what we'll end
up doing if we want any sort of robustness at all.
How much robustness do we really want?
Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 28 May 2013 13:56:19 +0200 as excerpted:
You're making a lot of statements like this but don't back them up.
Why would this work best for this situation? What's wrong with the rest?
While as long as it stays out of my way enough so I don't have to worry
about it,
21 matches
Mail list logo
