1. stay with sysvinit
2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
5. further discussion
Please rank the above putting your preferred option first, as per
Debian's usual Condorcet voting system. T
Hi!
Robert Millan writes:
> [ 3 ] 1. stay with sysvinit
> [ 3 ] 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
> [ 3 ] 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
> [ 1 ] 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
> [ 2 ] 5. further discussion
Petr Salinger writes:
> I would add also
Version: 0.92a-2
Package havp already built on kfreebsd-*, nearly 3 years ago :/
therefore closing this bug now.
Thanks,
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas.
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:22:12 +
with message-id <52e90e94.9070...@pyro.eu.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#650684: freebsd-quota: FTBFS: Makefile:12: *** missing
separator. Stop.
has caused the Debian Bug report #650684,
regarding freebsd-quota: FTBFS: Makefile:12: *** missing sepa
I'm only a kFreeBSD user and don't have any official standing within the
Debian project, but all the same my preferences are
614253
where 6. is the proposed alternative to switch to Upstart if Linux uses
it, otherwise sysvinit.
Jeff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.
Hi Niels,
On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
> to be on par with other release architectures in terms of
> supported packages for Jessie.
>- On the other hand, we believe k
On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>> to be on par with other release architectures in terms of
>> supported packages for Jessie.
>>
On 29/01/2014 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> If some packages (potentially the whole
> GNOME desktop environment) get a hard systemd dependency that would
> somewhat reduce the scope of the port for us I think.
>From what I can see in previous TC discussion, it seems that the plan
is for sysvi
Robert Millan writes:
> On 29/01/2014 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> If some packages (potentially the whole GNOME desktop environment) get
>> a hard systemd dependency that would somewhat reduce the scope of the
>> port for us I think.
> From what I can see in previous TC discussion, it se
On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>>> to be on par with other release architectures in
On 29/01/14 22:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Per Josselin's latest discussion of this, there doesn't appear to be any
> direct GNOME dependencies on systemd itself that would be blocking for
> jessie.
Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:
On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouet
Steven Chamberlain writes:
> Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:
> On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Because it needs logind.
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00360.html
> So, even having an adequate logind substitute, GNOME is expec
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> aren't as large of a porting issue). Rather, the question is whether it
> is actually viable to separate those services from systemd as init and
> port logind to non-Linux, whether that work will be done in time for
> jessie, and who is going to do it.
S
13 matches
Mail list logo
