]] Russ Allbery
(Cleaned up the Cc line somewhat)
> You can do quite a bit with the hooks that are part of the specification
> of both types of files. For example, logic that you may add to control
> whether the service should start at all can be implemented by adding a
> pre-start stanza to th
On 10/31/2013 02:50 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The most basic is the idea that whether you can control (via shell
> scrpit fragments) whether or not a service should start at all, and
> what options or environments should be enabled by pasing some file.
> The fact that we can put that sort of thing
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:50:53PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I suspect you and I have a root disagreement over the utility of exposing
> > some of those degrees of freedom to every init script author, but if you
> > have some mor
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I suspect you and I have a root disagreement over the utility of
>> exposing some of those degrees of freedom to every init script author,
>> but if you have some more specific examples of policy that you wan
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I suspect you and I have a root disagreement over the utility of exposing
> some of those degrees of freedom to every init script author, but if you
> have some more specific examples of policy that you wanted to change but
> couldn't,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:21:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, I've said this before, but I think it's worth reiterating. Either
> upstart or systemd configurations are *radically better* than init scripts
> on basically every axis. They're more robust, more maintainable, easier
> for the
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:21:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Well, I've said this before, but I think it's worth reiterating.
>> Either upstart or systemd configurations are *radically better* than
>> init scripts on basically every axis. They're more robust, more
>>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:58:36PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Wouter Verhelst
>
> > Yes, absense of documentation is common on Unix and Linux systems; but
> > no, I do not think that this is okay, or that we should in any way
> > encourage that sort of thing.
>
> By absense of documentat
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:29:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> While I agree with your point, it's pretty difficult to reimplement the
> "interesting" parts of systemd in other implementations of pid1 if
> whoever wrote the "interesting" parts does not document it, does not say
> what it's supp
2013/10/30 Helmut Grohne :
> What is going to happen with non-Linux ports?
Debian is not Debian without non-Linux ports.
As for me, I think it is not very hard to maintain diffrent init
systems for different kernels.
Especially if Debian GNU/Linux get rid of sysvinit: writing systemd or upstrart
]] Wouter Verhelst
> Yes, absense of documentation is common on Unix and Linux systems; but
> no, I do not think that this is okay, or that we should in any way
> encourage that sort of thing.
By absense of documentation, are you referring to the almost 10% of the
source base that are comments o
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 03:10:16PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The interfaces of all init systems (except sysvinit, but are we really
> considering that one?) still are somewhat in flux, so this is the point
> where we can still influence and shape them.
>
>
> Imagine a world where upstart and
Op 30-10-13 00:16, Russ Allbery schreef:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
>> On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>
>>> For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
>>> about all this on G+:
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8R
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:31:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:22:54AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Having read the parts of the ctte bug, it feels odd to preclude the
> > option of supporting multiple init systems from discussion or
> > consideration. If
Op 29-10-13 09:26, Steve Langasek schreef:
> I see no reason that, if upstart were chosen as the default, porters could
> not use it for our non-Linux ports as well.
With some work, sure.
> This is a much better outcome
> across our distribution as a whole than to require developers to continue
>
Hi,
I got a *new* argument in the favor of OpenRC:
http://youtu.be/zoNoi8BgQjs
Yes, we made it work in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD! :)
Upstream was very friendly helping to do this last night and this
morning. Now, the next blocker would be renaming /sbin/rc to
/sbin/openrc, though upstream pretends it
16 matches
Mail list logo
