On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 13:09 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
> > On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
> >> Debian is doing well, and it
On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 15:32:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:33:57PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hmm, do you have a reference? I've looked in the gnupg git master and
> > stable-2.0 branches and I don't see any obvious mention of this on the
> > NEWS file, or commi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn
* Package name: hyperrogue
Version : 3.7
Upstream Author : Zeno Rogue
* URL : http://www.roguetemple.com/z/hyper.php
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : non-euclidean graphical rogue-lik
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:19:58PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> > third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> > Debian systemd survey:
>
> Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the t
Kevin Chadwick writes:
> P.s. whenever I hear someone talk about Linux and Modern it is simply
> proving to show that commenter's inexperience. Only idiots *require*
> cgroups or parallelisation the latter being only required/beneficial
> when the fastest bootup is required, which is almost never
2013/7/14 Marco d'Itri :
> which is a waste of time and adds code which cannot
> be well tested.
Isn't Debian itself is a waste of time, while we have RedHat? :-P
Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.deb
Hi!
2013/7/14 Paul Tagliamonte :
> [...]
> It's also about the *student*. We want more contributors. Why throw away
> someone willing to do great work within Debian?
>
>> but just because a GSoC student is working on OpenRC in Debian
>> doesn't make it any more appealing or sensible in my eyes.
>
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> But there is a difference between "not used after its done as the project
> proofed that it is not able to deliver something more valuable" and
> "saying midway that whatever the student does, it will be discarded".
Whatever the student will do it cannot cha
> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:
Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the time when it
matters for my concerns for debian. I disagree with many of th
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 02:38:02PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> >of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> >without even t
On Jul 14, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Because it would be stupid, since it requires either one of:
- implementing the equivalent of init scripts for each init system
- dumbing down the init systems to the lowest common denominator (and
when
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Marco d'Itri wrote:
being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
I am quite sure that the quality of Debian and its continued viability
as a modern OS is way more important t
* Richard Hartmann:
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that
>
> 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
>
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.
The "BSD" hyperli
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:36:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Richard Hartmann writes:
>
> > Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> > states that
>
> > 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> > we consider free.'
>
> > It's quite ob
Richard Hartmann writes:
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> states that
> 'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.
It is?
The
Perhaps you'd be interested in 20130105150458.ga6...@vasudev.homelinux.net
Cheers,
Paul
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
> Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
>
>
Dear all,
during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
While, to put it bluntly, I think the Debian Constitution is written
somewhat sloppily, it's most likely not worth going through a GR to
get what amounts to ja
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies:
>
>> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
>> any objections against any proposed project.
>
> Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
> otherwise, that any de
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the sl
On 07/14/2013 11:40 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> yet there isn't any fully working implementation
>> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
>
> one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
> that's still not the case
Hi,
On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > yet there isn't any fully working implementation
> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
that's still not the case, despite 684396 being announced here a year ago.
cheers
On 07/14/2013 08:31 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
> I a
On 07/14/2013 04:57 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmodified. Remain
Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Debian already supports 3 (three) init systems *at once*, sysvinit,
upstart, systemd.
This is much harder that using single system.
FYI, on Dyson [1] I've made dh_installinit noop, and working on dh-smf [2]
[1] http://osdyson.org
[2] ht
* David Kalnischkies:
> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
> any objections against any proposed project.
Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
otherwise, that any deliverable is actually used by the mentoring
organization.
(Of the
On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I didn't know that someone is working on OpenRC
On Jul 14, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is
> > wasted on this dead end.
> It's a shame that such objections haven't been raised in a timely manner
> and through the proper channels.
I did it here and in #684396, so I think that
On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I am seriously expecting that Debian will not waste time
* Scott Kitterman:
> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the
> AGPL v3 again and one implication of the license is that you can't
> locally fix a security issue without immediate disclosure. This
> doesn't fit my personal ethics at all and at least IMO makes it
> pretty
* Marco d'Itri [2013-07-14 11:26:29 +0200]:
> On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> > OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> > still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> > well.
> And even if ported and fully working it will sti
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmo
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schrieb:
> On 07/13/2013 11:46 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>> Debian systemd survey:
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~stapelber
On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> well.
And even if ported and fully working it will still lack the features
needed by a modern init system.
Open
On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
- support for update-rc.d
- support for invoke-rc.d
- f
34 matches
Mail list logo
