Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > And again, this is more or less what Devuan is doing :) We are still > using 99.5% of the packages directly from Debian. All the packages > developed for Devuan work with little or no effort at all in other > Debian-based environments. We are probably just saying the same thing, > in two different ways :)
True, that. I'm not only aware of (and appreciate) that that's what Devuan is doing, but specifically note that fact in my OpenRC conversion Web page -- pointing out the ability of Debian users to use those repos among other options. > Me? No package at all. OK, fair enough. I'm sorry if I came across as irritatingly literal-minded, but when one Dng poster says my page's comprehensive list of impaired packages includes 'important' packages, another says it includes 'fundamental Linux packages everyone runs on Linux', and another (you) says implementing the page's tips entails 'a few compromises', I wonder what _specifically_ they are referring to. (I am also extremely skeptical of vagueness in areas where what is being articulated sounds suspiciously like polemics. See also your assertion that '60% or 70%' of Debian 8 packages lacking systemd dependency, when the correct figure can be easily determined to be 99.77%. So, I _like_ specific and verifiable. Specific and verifiable are good.) In my view, part of the advantage of creating detailed documentation (such as my modest Web page) is that any reader can decide for himself/herself what is important and what course of action to take. And I should stress that the intent was merely to say 'I tried this to solve a problem, and here are details of what I found, some suggestions about ways residual problems might be dealt with, and clarifications and some links about init systems. It might be useful to you. Or not.' People on this mailing list keep treating the page like it's a polemic to attempt to convince readers to do what it says, which seems more than a bit crazy, to me. > My computing is so simple and archaic that systemd cannot *currently* > affect it in any meaningful way. But unfortunately I profoundly hate > (and I am sure you will appreciate that this is the first time I use > this word in our discussion) the change-for-change-sake attitude. Yes, it's the Freedesktop.org CADT problem. I hope people on this list know the CADT meme, right? https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html (I know the original CADT, Luis Villa, now an attorney. He's far more reasonable than Jamie Zawinski's sarcastic essay would suggest, and has a worthwhile explanation for the bug-handling that inspired the essay: http://lu.is/blog/2014/03/28/i-am-the-cadt-and-advice-on-needinfoing-old-bugs-en-masse/ ) CADT is one problem factor in the Freedesktop.org codebases in question (systemd/udev, udisks2, PolKit, upower, packagekit, etc.), and tangled dependency graphs are another. And the gullibility of the GNOME people (AFIACT, both upstream devs and maintainers of the Debian packages) in falling for that suite of code was IMO the triggering factor in setting off the crisis (along with the Debian Project failing to then reassess its choice of GNOME as default DE). > I hate being forced to use by default a software developed to solve a > non-existing problem in a so intricate way that you barely recognise > it as a solution to any problem at all. {shrug} I just deal with it. Experience suggests that dislike is not a plan, and is only an unreliable motivator. The military people have a useful acronym for this situation: OODA -- observe, orient, decide, and act (which is a mnemonic to aid effective planning). https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_78.htm > I am convinced that it is still possible to do things in 2016 (and in > 2017, and in 2018, and until early 2038, fot that matter) avoiding the > massive bloatware that they want to convince us to accept. And I am > here to prove it, as you are. Maybe with different means. Yes, indeed. Being mostly in server computing, and eschewing DEs by preference, I had been able to ignore the controversy as a GNOME problem, and avoided it by declining to install anything from GNOME with too ridiculous a dependency train. (So, for example, I find the dependency list of packages abiword and gnumeric acceptable, but not some other GNOME applications, and most definitely not, for example, 'evolution'.) I've gradually become aware that udev is a liability, and am now on guard against other Freedesktop.org CADTware. Rob Landley's work making mdev available will probably solve my udev problem (along with an 'equivs' item claiming falsely that udev is present). People here keep suggesting that approaches like mine approximate maintaining my own distribution, and are a strategic mistake. I do not agree with the premise: I'm doing (and contemplating) nothing _remotely_ like maintaining my own distribution. My mother didn't raise any fools: The whole point of leveraging others' work, like Rob Landley's, is to avoid doing so. > That's your opinion, and I respect it. My opinion is different, and > probably won't change, so I am sure you will respect it in turn. Naturally! > Do > you think all the guys and ladies here are just a bunch of assholes > who didn't think about the possibility of pinning, and dpkg-buil-ding, > and mixing repos, and duct-taping the oddities introduced by systemd > one after the other? :) I would not dream of so asserting. But technically I wasn't present for what was investigated, so I merely assume that people intelligently grappled with the problem and did what seemed best based on their priorities and available information. I'm just a sysadmin who tried something, documented it, and speculated that other, less-drastic ways of perpetuating a no-systemd Debian-variant community than a fork would have also worked. I might be right; I might be wrong. But I cannot see that my holding that view would be a legitimate offence to anyone. Remember, I did _not_ come onto this list to blurt out that opinion. That would have been being a jerk. Rather, Mr. Litt decided, in his great wisdom, to do that. > We don't need to prove here who is better than whom. Well, I _am_ better-looking. ;-> > Again, I don't use GNOME, but if I can't shutdown from GNOME this is a > little daily PITA. I care so very, very little about GNOME at this point that I am not going to even try researching how to fix broken shutdown controls resulting from not having systemd-logind -> libpam-systemd -> systemd present. I _might_ be able to look up that problem, but I'm kind of done with attempting to help fix GNOME problems. I just assume it's broken. Thus, no offence intended, good people, but when Devuan produces a fully functional GNOME3 stack with everything working, I'm very unlikely to recommend it to people because, in my experience, GNOME is a brittle dependency hairball, too much trouble, and nearly impossible to diagnose when it has problems. Same with KDE4. > I don't need hplip, but if I do (and, just to mention, if I admin a > couple dozens machines which do), then hacking around a solution at > each dist-upgrade is a PITA. {sigh} Maybe you didn't read what I wrote on my Web site. There's no problem with the Debian HPLIP _except_ misleading package naming. Basically, _all_ of the HPLIP contents you actually want are in packages printer-driver-hpcups and printer-driver-hpijs. Install those, with the CUPS print engine, and you have full, working HPLIP. No 'hacking around a solution with each dist-upgrade' is ever required. The point is: You simply do not need the package _called_ 'hplip' (an omnibus metapackage that includes GNOME glue), and merely avoiding the error of installing it permanently (AFAICT) avoids dependency problems and GNOME disease. > If the systemd-lot wants to push "sessions" to the point of asking > screen and tmux to change their code base in order to adhere to the > systemd-lot view of the world, this is not just a PITA, but an insult > to the way free software is normally developed, i.e. to cooperate with > more free software. Well, they can _want_ that, but -- seriously -- do you honestly think the maintainers of GNU screen and tmux would have any reason to do so? This seems frankly like another fantasy apocalpse, like the fellow upthread who was burbling about a future systemd dependency in GNU libc. Caution about CADTware is laudable, but -- seriously: GNU screen and tmux? I really don't think so. > I really hope Devuan will be proven wrong by a strong community effort > able to force reason back in the Debian quarters. This isn't the way history works, because you never get to re-run history with different inputs. Obviously. So, there is no 'proving wrong' by any rational standard. -- Cheers, <blazemore> omg i love this song Rick Moen <blazemore> Now playing: Unknown Artist - Track 2 r...@linuxmafia.com @ 128 Kbps. (0:47/3:24) McQ! (4x80) <Javi> blazemore: Yeah, that's a bad-ass song. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
