On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:49:19AM +0900, heroxbd wrote:
> Helmut Grohne writes:
>
> > By far the more severe issue is socket activation, because it removes
> > the need to spell out service dependencies. We cannot infer these
> > dependencies later on. Instead such a wrapper must implement socke
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 14 juillet 2013 à 11:55 -0700, Geoffrey Thomas a écrit :
And if it turns out that systemd is today necessary for Debian's
"viability as a modern OS", there are ways for the project to make that
decision without being rude to folks who hav
On 07/16/2013 02:19 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:18:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge advantage
>> over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial,
>
> That's not true at all.
>
>> throwing away no
On 07/16/2013 01:50 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 06:54 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> People aren't bothered by OpenRC because it might win, they're
>> bothered because its advocates fail to understand why they've
>> already lost before they've begun.
>
> I fully agree on
On 07/16/2013 01:03 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Sorry that this takes a bit longer then expected, but packages based on
v204 are in preparation and expect them soonish.
Thanks for the update! Rock on! :)
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`
Am 15.07.2013 22:04, schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> On 07/15/2013 09:39 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/07/14/systemd-how-to-help.html
>
> Thanks for the guidelines and the idea to coordinate future work!
>
> This actually leads me to something I h
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I've been administering UNIX systems professionally for 20 years,
>> from SunOS and ULTRIX through AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, and Linux.
>> In my professional, *experienced* opinion, proper deployment of a
>> modern
On 07/15/2013 09:50 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
How much of that improvement would be realised if we added a dependable,
declarative (i.e. config-based instead of shell-script-based) service
configuration support to sysvinit ?
You can't trivially add these features to sysvinit withou
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> How much of that improvement would be realised if we added a dependable,
> declarative (i.e. config-based instead of shell-script-based) service
> configuration support to sysvinit ?
Some, mostly on the maintenance side. I think the major short-term win is
On 07/15/2013 09:39 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/07/14/systemd-how-to-help.html
Thanks for the guidelines and the idea to coordinate future work!
This actually leads me to something I have been wondering for
some time: Are there already plans to updat
Helmut Grohne writes:
> By far the more severe issue is socket activation, because it removes
> the need to spell out service dependencies. We cannot infer these
> dependencies later on. Instead such a wrapper must implement socket
> activation in order to work correctly. This is the non-trivial
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've been administering UNIX systems professionally for 20 years, from
> SunOS and ULTRIX through AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, and Linux. In my
> professional, *experienced* opinion, proper deployment of a modern init
> system will make Debian considerably
Hi,
I am sorry for starting yet another thread on systemd, but we feel this
particular post is important and should spread as widely as possible
(i.e. beyond just readers of planet debian):
http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/07/14/systemd-how-to-help.html
tl;dr: whatever you end up doing,
This one time, at band camp, Roger Leigh said:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:02:34PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > cloud-init-0.7.2 $ wc -l systemd/* upstart/* sysvinit/*
> >17 systemd/cloud-config.service
> >10 systemd/cloud-config.target
> >17 systemd/cloud-final.service
> >16 s
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:18:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge advantage
> over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial,
That's not true at all.
> throwing away non-Linux ports, and taking over the whole of the system.
>
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:48:22PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 07:11 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Not sure where this idea comes from. upstart has never supported non-Linux
> >kernels; we're open to it being ported to other kernels, but prctl is a
> >minor detail for ke
On 07/15/2013 04:32 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> And now people who want to stick with buggy shell scripts instead of
> migrating to a much simpler, declarative mechanism.
Please point at a single person on any threads about init systems over
the last year who wishes that. I haven't see any. Did
On 07/15/2013 05:02 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:18:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>>
>> If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge advantage
>> over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial, throwing away
>> non-Linux ports, and taking ove
On 07/15/2013 06:54 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
People aren't bothered by OpenRC because it might win, they're
bothered because its advocates fail to understand why they've
> already lost before they've begun.
I fully agree on this with you! I cannot really imagine OpenRC to
be ever a viable alt
On 07/15/2013 07:11 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not sure where this idea comes from. upstart has never supported non-Linux
kernels; we're open to it being ported to other kernels, but prctl is a
minor detail for kernel compatibility compared with other, more significant
features that upstart relie
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57:23AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >You also wrote more or less that systemd is the only way to support
> >cgroups, while this is untrue. OpenRC at least has support for it (and
> >probably upstart too? I'm not sure...), and it also builds on FreeBSD
> >(no
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:10:16PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >> Last I heard, that was exactly systemd fanbase complain: that everyone
> >> just complained without even trying it based on hearsay.
> >> So, lets try "leading by example", shall we?
> > There is no systemd fanbase. I am not
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:14:43PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 15/07/13 14:38, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Indeed we are out of luck with Type=forking. In the presence of a decent
> > init system daemonizing is the job of the init system. It is uselessly
> > duplicated code. Let's rip that code
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:38:57PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:32:42PM +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> > In addition to that the wrapper also needs to be able to track the
> > processes started by the systemd service (the admin might want to stop
> > or restart services i
On 07/15/2013 09:43 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/15/2013 03:00 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
My personal objections to systemd come down to the fact that I
don't trust its developers / maintainers. Part of that is bleedover
from the fact that I've so far had only poor experiences with
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Eugenio Cano-Manuel Mendoza"
* Package name: libcore-cache-clojure
Version : 0.6.2
Upstream Author : Michael Fogus
* URL : https://github.com/clojure/core.cache
* License : EPL-1.0
Programming Lang: Java, Clojure
De
On 15/07/13 14:38, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Indeed we are out of luck with Type=forking. In the presence of a decent
> init system daemonizing is the job of the init system. It is uselessly
> duplicated code. Let's rip that code out of daemons and turn them into
> "simple" ones.
It does matter where
On 07/15/2013 03:00 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
My personal objections to systemd come down to the fact that I don't
trust its developers /maintainers. Part of that is bleedover from the
fact that I've so far had only poor experiences with pulseaudio
I haven't had any problems with PulseAudio for a
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:32:42PM +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> In addition to that the wrapper also needs to be able to track the
> processes started by the systemd service (the admin might want to stop
> or restart services in addition to starting them), which systemd does by
> using cgroups. Ei
On 15-07-13 14:09, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 14 juillet 2013 à 11:55 -0700, Geoffrey Thomas a écrit :
>> And if it turns out that systemd is today necessary for Debian's
>> "viability as a modern OS", there are ways for the project to make that
>> decision without being rude to folks
On 07/15/2013 08:07 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 15 juillet 2013 à 16:18 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge
advantage over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial,
throwing away non-Linux ports, and taking over the who
Please don't CC me, I read the list.
Ondřej Surý writes:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>> This has been discussed several times, there was even a GSoC project to
>> implement a systemd service -> init script converter (essentially
>> providing the same thing). Sadly th
On 07/15/2013 01:37 PM, heroxbd wrote:
I can visualize that within two months we will have a off-the-shelf
OpenRC package working with initscripts/sysvinit vanilla offering modern
features like cgroups, at users' choice.
Good, I'll take your word on that.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Gl
Le dimanche 14 juillet 2013 à 11:55 -0700, Geoffrey Thomas a écrit :
> And if it turns out that systemd is today necessary for Debian's
> "viability as a modern OS", there are ways for the project to make that
> decision without being rude to folks who have been working on other
> systems (and,
Le lundi 15 juillet 2013 à 16:18 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge advantage
> over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial, throwing away
> non-Linux ports, and taking over the whole of the system. It will just
> be an improve
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:22AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Just a quick idea:
>
> Can we (the mysterious somebody) write a drop-in simple dummy init.d script
> which would take a(ny) systemd service file and run the daemon on
> non-Linux-kernel systems?
I proposed[1] this earlier. The environ
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> Ondřej Surý writes:
> > Just a quick idea:
> >
> > Can we (the mysterious somebody) write a drop-in simple dummy init.d
> script
> > which would take a(ny) systemd service file and run the daemon on
> > non-Linux-kernel systems?
>
> This h
Dear Guys,
Holger Levsen writes:
> 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.
(Replying generally)
There seems to be some doubts concerning why #684396 has taken a whole
year without being finished.
2013/7/15 Jerome BENOIT :
> the former binary package
> liblambda0 is not discarded by the new binary package liblambda1, neither in
> Sid
> nor at the upgrading stage with aptitude.
> I guess that something is missing in `debian/control', any clue ?
I think this is intentional. And this is why p
Hello List:
When the SONAME increments the associated binary library package has a new name,
so the SONAME suffix has to increment as well accordingly: for a library package
lambda, the binary library package could be renamed from liblambda0 to
liblambda1.
I thought that I could manage all of the
Ondřej Surý writes:
> Just a quick idea:
>
> Can we (the mysterious somebody) write a drop-in simple dummy init.d script
> which would take a(ny) systemd service file and run the daemon on
> non-Linux-kernel systems?
This has been discussed several times, there was even a GSoC project to
implemen
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Michael Stapelberg
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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/~stapelberg/2013/07/13/systemd-not
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:02:34PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> cloud-init-0.7.2 $ wc -l systemd/* upstart/* sysvinit/*
>17 systemd/cloud-config.service
>10 systemd/cloud-config.target
>17 systemd/cloud-final.service
>16 systemd/cloud-init-local.service
>17 systemd/cloud-init.
Le Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:18:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>
> If OpenRC goes up to the shape I expect, it will have a huge advantage
> over systemd and Upstart: it will not be controversial, throwing away
> non-Linux ports, and taking over the whole of the system. It will just
> be an imp
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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
Le dimanche 14 juillet 2013 à 20:19 +0100, Kevin Chadwick a écrit :
> I certainly wouldn't run systemd on any of our systems including
> production systems or products and in fact could never run it on some
> of our embedded products because it is simply too resource hungry.
If you have requirem
On 07/15/2013 03:20 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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 dis
On Sun, July 14, 2013 21:19, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> my care for Linux is diminishing daily.
> p.s. I haven't the time to talk about or even recollect a 20th of the
> problems that systemd poses
> P.s. whenever I hear someone talk about Linux and Modern it is simply
> proving to show that comment
48 matches
Mail list logo
