to replace upstart[1] with
systemd[2] for 11.10?
I have to say I was skeptical at first, but after reading that very good
introduction it sounds great!
http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/
Seriously? It is too close to LTS
Quoting Steve Langasek (steve.langa...@ubuntu.com):
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:01:50PM -0500, Patrick Goetz wrote:
On 05/11/2011 04:57 AM, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
From: Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:55:09 +0200
So you want to require
On 05/12/2011 07:00 AM, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
From: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:40:12 +0200
That's what happens*today*. But cgroups are an entirely new interface in
the kernel that in systemd explicitly prevents that from
Quoting Patrick Goetz (pgo...@mail.utexas.edu):
On 05/12/2011 07:00 AM, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
From: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:40:12 +0200
That's what happens*today*. But cgroups are an entirely new interface in
the kernel
]] Serge Hallyn
| Not even. Another task can do it, or you can do it by hand when or
| after you start your screeen session.
It just needs to be done as root, since the systemd cgroup hierarchy
isn't writable to a normal user.
| But again, that's also why cgroups are not the panacea
On 05/11/2011 06:12 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:44 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On the other hand, you can't possibly hope to convince anyone that a
persistent
screen session requiring a specialized init task is a feature, not a bug.
It doesn't require a specialized anything.
A
On 11/05/11 20:07, Patrick Goetz wrote:
On 05/11/2011 05:25 AM, James Hunt wrote:
The best place to start is:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyNarwhal/TechnicalOverviewUpstart
This section:
...if a job configuration file specified the following complex
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:01:50PM -0500, Patrick Goetz wrote:
On 05/11/2011 04:57 AM, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
From: Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:55:09 +0200
So you want to require screen users to break their current user
experience by
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:39:40 -0400
Phillip Susi ps...@cfl.rr.com wrote:
On 5/10/2011 6:46 AM, Steffen Barszus wrote:
So the discussion should be on how to evaluate systemd , and set a
number of criterias to benchmark both. Then the better one should be
planned for slow migration.
Look
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:56:11 (CEST), Phillip Susi wrote:
Case in point, I have gnome-terminal set up to run byobu-launcher which sets
up
a screen session, and the session continues on between gdm sessions,
allowing me
to reconnect to it after re-logging in, either on gdm again, a tty
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 08:56:11PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 05/10/2011 08:10 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
Is it really necessary to kill all children of gdm when gdm itself gets
stopped?
I might have started some backgrounded script somewhere that should really
continue running after
On 10/05/11 21:45, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 5/10/2011 4:15 PM, James Hunt wrote:
If you are seeing strange behaviour, please raise bugs so we can look at
them.
It is a design limitation AFAIK, not a bug. At least the last time I
asked SJR about it, Upstart doesn't use cgroups to track
On 10/05/11 21:45, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 5/10/2011 4:15 PM, James Hunt wrote:
If you are seeing strange behaviour, please raise bugs so we can look at
them.
It is a design limitation AFAIK, not a bug. At least the last time I
asked SJR about it, Upstart doesn't use cgroups to track
On 11/05/2011 21:34, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 5/10/2011 10:31 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
Sorry, but this sounds really ridiculous right now. If systemd really
prevents
the creation of background processes that disconnect themselves from the task
that init originally spawned, there's something
On 5/10/2011 10:31 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
Sorry, but this sounds really ridiculous right now. If systemd really prevents
the creation of background processes that disconnect themselves from the task
that init originally spawned, there's something seriously wrong with systemd,
and I think we
On 05/11/2011 04:57 AM, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
From: Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:55:09 +0200
So you want to require screen users to break their current user
experience by having them to write (system-wide) upstart scripts?
I'm
On 5/11/2011 10:44 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On the other hand, you can't possibly hope to convince anyone that a persistent
screen session requiring a specialized init task is a feature, not a bug.
It doesn't require a specialized anything.
A persistent ANYTHING when transitioning to
On 5/11/2011 5:57 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
The only thing that I see cgroups give you that you don't already have from
killall5 is the assurance that processes won't dodge attempts to kill them.
That's an interesting feature of cgroups to think about, but I don't think
it's relevant to single
Patrick,
On 09/05/11 16:58, Patrick Goetz wrote:
From: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:45:56 +0200
And let's not forget that, for anyone tracking the LTS, upstart
is*already*
the system in use for the previous LTS, 10.04. The fundamentals of how
upstart
Hi Martin,
On 09/05/11 21:01, Martin Pitt wrote:
Steve Langasek [2011-05-09 12:36 +0200]:
It's one thing to have a rollback plan for which desktop experience is
shipped by default; that touches a handful of closely related packages.
It's quite another to try to roll back an init system
On 09/05/11 19:34, Patrick Goetz wrote:
I think the discussion found in this bug report makes a fairly
compelling argument that Ubuntu should probably migrate to systemd
sooner rather than later. Note particularly that a take away message
from this is that services like apache and postfix
James Hunt [2011-05-10 11:00 +0100]:
If we should ever do the migration to systemd,
.. Which to be clear, we are not considering currently.
Right, I didn't want to imply this.
I agree in principle that we should do this *should* we ever consider
moving to systemd, but there is the issue of
On 10/05/11 11:46, Steffen Barszus wrote:
Look its new and it has bells and whistles lets move to that is not
a valid argument for moving to a new init.
+1000.
James.
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
On 5/10/2011 6:55 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
I don't think we can, given that upstart and systemd have opposite
approaches to when to start services (as soon as you can vs. not
until you need them). So even a very coarse approximation like
I don't think this is correct. If I understood the
On 05/10/2011 04:55 AM, James Hunt wrote:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/406397
This is a nasty bug, but it does not require a complete rewrite of
Upstart. Indeed, we are currently considering replacing the process
tracking code to resolve this bug.
Hi -
To be clear, the
Patrick Goetz [2011-05-10 9:52 -0500]:
My only concern: wouldn't this then require that every binary
package would have to be built to work with either upstart or
systemd? This seems like the kind of system detail that's
relatively binary: either you use one, or the other, but not both.
]] Patrick Goetz
| My only concern: wouldn't this then require that every binary package
| would have to be built to work with either upstart or systemd? This
| seems like the kind of system detail that's relatively binary: either
| you use one, or the other, but not both.
As long as there's
On 5/10/2011 6:46 AM, Steffen Barszus wrote:
So the discussion should be on how to evaluate systemd , and set a
number of criterias to benchmark both. Then the better one should be
planned for slow migration.
Look its new and it has bells and whistles lets move to that is not
a valid argument
On 5/10/2011 4:15 PM, James Hunt wrote:
If you are seeing strange behaviour, please raise bugs so we can look at
them.
It is a design limitation AFAIK, not a bug. At least the last time I
asked SJR about it, Upstart doesn't use cgroups to track children like
systemd does, and so it looses
Hi Phillip,
On 10/05/11 18:39, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 5/10/2011 6:46 AM, Steffen Barszus wrote:
So the discussion should be on how to evaluate systemd , and set a
number of criterias to benchmark both. Then the better one should be
planned for slow migration.
Look its new and it has bells
On 11/05/2011 04:45, Phillip Susi wrote:
It is a design limitation AFAIK, not a bug. At least the last time I asked
SJR
about it, Upstart doesn't use cgroups to track children like systemd does, and
so it looses track of children of the jobs it creates, such as programs the
logged in user
On 11/05/2011 08:56, Phillip Susi wrote:
That screen session should be run by init as a parallel service to gdm
so it can be started or stopped when appropriate, with or without gdm.
Sorry, but this sounds really ridiculous right now. If systemd really prevents
the creation of background
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/2011 07:03 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
hi,
Am Samstag, den 30.04.2011, 18:24 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bechtold:
Hi,
i just want to know if there are any plans to replace upstart[1] with
systemd[2] for 11.10?
I have to say I was skeptical
Hi Patrick,
On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 03:39:37PM -0500, Patrick Goetz wrote:
Woh, slow down there, partner. If Ubuntu is going to switch from
upstart to systemd, then the sooner the better. There is nothing
worse than investing time and energy learning about and working the
kinks out of the
Hi Phillip,
On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 06:11:57PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 05/06/2011 07:03 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
hi,
Am Samstag, den 30.04.2011, 18:24 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bechtold:
Hi,
i just want to know if there are any plans to replace upstart[1] with
systemd[2] for 11.10
Steve Langasek [2011-05-09 12:36 +0200]:
It's one thing to have a rollback plan for which desktop experience is
shipped by default; that touches a handful of closely related packages.
It's quite another to try to roll back an init system change, which touches
every single package that's
Steve Langasek [2011-05-09 11:45 +0200]:
This is not a transition that I would like to see Ubuntu starting one year
before the next LTS with no prior preparation. Even if Ubuntu decided to
switch to systemd in the long term (which is by no means a decision that has
been made yet!), switching
I think the discussion found in this bug report makes a fairly
compelling argument that Ubuntu should probably migrate to systemd
sooner rather than later. Note particularly that a take away message
from this is that services like apache and postfix will need to continue
to use sysV init
From: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:45:56 +0200
And let's not forget that, for anyone tracking the LTS, upstart is*already*
the system in use for the previous LTS, 10.04. The fundamentals of how
upstart will work in 12.04 LTS are the same as in 10.04 LTS;
From: Oliver Grawert o...@ubuntu.com
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 01:03:26 +0200
Am Samstag, den 30.04.2011, 18:24 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bechtold:
i just want to know if there are any plans to replace upstart[1] with
systemd[2] for 11.10?
http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu
Hi,
i just want to know if there are any plans to replace upstart[1] with
systemd[2] for 11.10?
Cheers,
Tom
[1] http://upstart.at/
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu
41 matches
Mail list logo
