Re: [Question] lin-guider: block ITP 727532 by RFS 727618

On 2013-10-30 07:19, James Lukash wrote: > Hello all. I received a message about my ITP bug: > === >> block 727532 by 727618 > Bug #727532 [wnpp] ITP: lin-guider -- Astronomical autoguiding program > 727532 was not blocked by any bugs. > 727532 was not blocking any bugs. > Added blocking bug(s) of

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

Russ, It seems we don't have at all the same reading of Patrick post. Note that what's below is my comments on your comments about Patrick's comments, and do not represent my view (which I do not wish to express it more at this point). On 10/30/2013 07:16 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > the core conten

[Question] lin-guider: block ITP 727532 by RFS 727618

Hello all. I received a message about my ITP bug: === > block 727532 by 727618 Bug #727532 [wnpp] ITP: lin-guider -- Astronomical autoguiding program 727532 was not blocked by any bugs. 727532 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 727532: 727618 > stop Stopping processing here. === Wh

Re: porting OpenRC to Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (was: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.)

On 10/29/2013 09:34 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:47:56 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Note that OpenRC already works on some (non-Debian) BSD platforms, and >> that it should be trivial to have it to build on kFreeBSD and Hurd, > > And so I came up with the attac

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On 29/10/13 01:34, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Actually quite amazing how painless that was, though I most certainly > don't expect it to be functional yet. I have tested it now. It's actually running and doing 'something'! And it is colourful. I'm testing it inside of a BSD jail currently. Th

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

(Removing the ctte bug from CC to reduce noise) On 10/29/2013 11:59 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > 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/0/115547683

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

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/8RmiAQsW9qf > And here is the reply from Gentoo de

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

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/8RmiAQsW9qf And here is the reply from Gentoo developer Patrick Lauer: http://gentooexperim

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 00:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > (Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support > > multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to > > lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian. > > Absolutely not true. As Tollef mentions in his foll

Bug#728251: ITP: volatility -- advanced memory forensics framework

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Joao Eriberto Mota Filho * Package name: volatility Version : 2.3 Upstream Author : Volatility Foundation * URL : https://code.google.com/p/volatility * License : GPL2 Programming Lang: Python Description : advan

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

Olaf Titz writes: >> Aeh, are you sure? I think you missed my point. I'm not involved with >> any init system, nor a Debian developer, yet by developing some random >> app and having it depend on a specific init system, I could (according >> to you) make that init system unsuitable for Debian? > >

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

Steven Chamberlain writes: > But that seems like the easiest way to not break what is already working > in GNU/kFreeBSD, Hurd - and on users' own Linux systems if they have > non-Debian software using SysV init scripts. The last is unrelated. Both systemd and upstart support SysV init scripts j

Re: Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

2013/10/29 Steven Chamberlain : > [...] > > Just wondering, if systemd upstream cares only for Linux and that's > considered okay, might they also start dropping support for > architectures they stop caring about (or for commercial reasons)? Say > MIPS, s390, SPARC. In that case, permanently ditc

Re: Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:38:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Brian May writes: >> My understanding is that init scripts will still be required for FreeBSD >> and The Hurd. > > I would not assume that. At least, I personally don't think that > switching to upstart or systemd as a default but requiri

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

On 24/10/13 18:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility? > > That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard > rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some > unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNO

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

previously on this list Olav Vitters contributed: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with > > it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it > > is an extremely small minority

Bug#728246: ITP: libmoosex-types-stringlike-perl -- Moose type constraints for strings or string-like objects

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Damyan Ivanov * Package name: libmoosex-types-stringlike-perl Version : 0.001 Upstream Author : David Golden * URL : https://metacpan.org/release/MooseX-Types-Stringlike * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: Perl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd > > > i

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Oct 29, Russ Allbery wrote: > There are various other options, including not changing away from sysvinit > or someone porting the necessary support to Hurd and kFreeBSD. Or, of > course, dropping Hurd and kFreeBSD, although I'm sure that no one wants > that outcome. Well. If the choice is bet

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Aron Xu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Aron Xu wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >>

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Aron Xu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Aron Xu wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES >>> wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aron Xu wrote: > On Wed,

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:29:10PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd > > init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container. > Whoah,

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Aron Xu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aron Xu wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Aron Xu > > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Aron Xu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aron Xu wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]]

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On 10/29/2013 10:27 AM, Brian May wrote: > On 29 October 2013 12:21, Russ Allbery > wrote: > > In other words, I don't think it would make any sense at all to > standardize on upstart or systemd and then ask people to continue to > write > init scripts in t

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with > it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it > is an extremely small minority of Debian users but possibly? a majority Do you have any

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aron Xu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >>> ]] Aron Xu >>> > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can locate a board right now > with > that - so, w

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

previously on this list Philipp Kern contributed: > I'm not sure why our enterprise users don't count as users as well. Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it is an extremely small minority of Deb

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aron Xu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> ]] Aron Xu >> >>> > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can locate a board right now >>> > with >>> > that - so, we may have to fix remote management with a remotely controlled >>>

Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system

On 10/29/2013 06:53 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi Svante, > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote: >> Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html > > I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more

Re: porting OpenRC on kFreeBSD and Hurd (was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

On 10/29/2013 03:57 PM, Svante Signell wrote: > On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as >> this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd >> be nice if someone from the FTP master t

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Aron Xu > >> > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can locate a board right now with >> > that - so, we may have to fix remote management with a remotely controlled >> > power/reset box - I believe they exist (something else I've b

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Aron Xu > >> > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can locate a board right now with >> > that - so, we may have to fix remote management with a remotely controlled >> > power/reset box - I believe they exist (something else I've b

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

Hi, > "Graham" == Graham Whaley writes: > What we need to consider here is also board price and availability. We > can buy 2f mini-PCs, relatively cheap and easily. If they satisfy a > need then they may be (a mid-term/interim) solution to shortage of > hardware right now. If I find we can s

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use

]] Aron Xu > > IPMI would be lovely, but I'm not sure we can locate a board right now with > > that - so, we may have to fix remote management with a remotely controlled > > power/reset box - I believe they exist (something else I've been looking > > into). If the DSA already use some then I'd be

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"): > On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I'm keen that Debian should continue to support a wide range of > > architectures. Would it help if I, as a DD, volunteered to sponsor > > porter uploads for any architecture

Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default recursive resolver

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013, at 17:35, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default > recursive resolver"): > > There is nothing in DNSSEC which makes it inherently incompatible with > > using DNS forwarders. Talking to the root DNS servers is fun and all, > > b

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

Hi Helmut, 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 Debian is to support only one init system and that one > init system i

Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default recursive resolver

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default recursive resolver"): > There is nothing in DNSSEC which makes it inherently incompatible with > using DNS forwarders. Talking to the root DNS servers is fun and all, > but there's really no good reason why you shouldn't use the l

Re: "security-aware-resolver" virtual package (Was: Two new DNS virtual packages (authoritative-name-server & recursive-name-server))

Ondřej Surý writes (""security-aware-resolver" virtual package (Was: Two new DNS virtual packages (authoritative-name-server & recursive-name-server))"): > since the authoritative-name-server idea was rejected by the list, I was > going to propose alternative: > > security-aware-resolver > > The

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote: > Niels Thykier writes ("Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"): >> Results of porter roll-call >> === > ... >> Summary table: >> Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total >> - ---++-++-++---

Re: on bootstrapping ports (was: Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))

On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:15:09 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 27/10/2013 16:30, Daniel Schepler a écrit : > > (To be honest, the > > Java packages are such a tangled mess that I've given up on trying to > > bootstrap that part of the archive for now -- and many of those do get > > pulled into

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On 29 October 2013 13:34, Aron Xu wrote: > > It would require much more resource to spend on making more ports, > this means more build machines and man power, which is not sufficient > at mean time. > > True. I hopefully have some resource coming online, and I may also have some in-house build h

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On 29 October 2013 13:40, Aron Xu wrote: > > What we are running isn't any of them, and the 2-way server board > looks promising. > > Thanks both. OK, so I've no details from Loongson about the boards they have for me yet either - I suspect it may be the same as your board. What we need to consi

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

Niels Thykier writes ("Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"): > Results of porter roll-call > === ... > Summary table: > Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total > - ---++-++-++---++-- > armel || 5 || 0 |

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Graham Whaley wrote: > > > > On 29 October 2013 13:34, Aron Xu wrote: >> >> >> It would require much more resource to spend on making more ports, >> this means more build machines and man power, which is not sufficient >> at mean time. >> > > True. I hopefully ha

Re: Proposal: s have a GR about the init system

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Proposal: s have a GR about the init system"): > Both Colin and Steve are excellent developers. I see no need for any of > them to recuse themselves because of their employer. Whether Steve > should recuse himself due to him being the maintainer of one of the > packag

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013, at 5:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: > I do. I think non-Linux ports make more sense as derivative > distributions. This gives them the freedom to drop packages that aren't > worth porting, work around Linux-isms as necessary, improve integration > with their own kernel, and releas

Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default recursive resolver

On 2013-10-29 22:03:59 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/29/2013 03:42 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > There's also no reason why you _need_ a local DNS server to be able to > > do DNSSEC resolving; you can theoretically use a stub resolver (though > > I'm not sure if there's a stub resolver i

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian."): > I do. I think non-Linux ports make more sense as derivative > distributions. This gives them the freedom to drop packages that aren't > worth porting, work around Linux-isms as necessary, imp

Re: Jessie release goal: DNSSEC as default recursive resolver

On 10/29/2013 03:42 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op 28-10-13 19:28, Thomas Goirand schreef: >> So, as per the replies we've read, it seems that the only way to >> implement DNSSEC would be to first check if it works, and if it doesn't, >> fallback to the locally provided recursive DNS server. > >

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Graham Whaley wrote: > > > > On 29 October 2013 11:50, YunQiang Su wrote: > [snip] >> >> > Nice. Can I ask which board that is? I have some boards reserved for me >> > in >> > Loongson that I am highly likely to purchase, and suspect (but would >> > like to >> > c

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Graham Whaley wrote: > On 25 October 2013 17:22, YunQiang Su wrote: > >> After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port >> almost done. >> Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully. >> The current build status can be found in ht

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On 29 October 2013 11:50, YunQiang Su wrote: [snip] > > Nice. Can I ask which board that is? I have some boards reserved for me > in > > Loongson that I am highly likely to purchase, and suspect (but would > like to > > confirm) that they are the same board that you are using. I will also > check

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:22 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: > >> After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port >> almost done. >> Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully. > > Congrats! > > Please create a page on t

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Graham Whaley wrote: > On 25 October 2013 17:22, YunQiang Su wrote: > >> After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port >> almost done. >> Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully. >> The current build status can be found in ht

Re: MIPS64EL port box is ready for use (Was: mips64el port build failed list)

On 25 October 2013 17:22, YunQiang Su wrote: > After more than half of a year's hard work, we have the mips64el port > almost done. > Now we have more than 7600 packages build successfully. > The current build status can be found in http://vip.moonux.org/attempted/ > Hey! - well done. That's qui

Re: Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system

Hi Svante, On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote: > Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we might get OpenRC working on our ports, but some still

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

TL;DR: Thoughts on using systemd .service files on non-Linux ports. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:20:10AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Note that there are two options that could be explored, to remove the > need to maintain init scripts: > - generating sysvinit scripts from systemd service files or

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:02AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Olav Vitters vitters.nl> writes: > > > Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references > > But (by the time of the jessie freeze, at least) it will need systemd to > be pid1 to work. Same thing, really, ju

Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce

Olav Vitters vitters.nl> writes: > Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references But (by the time of the jessie freeze, at least) it will need systemd to be pid1 to work. Same thing, really, just picking words. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:22:14PM +, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to > > drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility; > While I'm not su

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On 28/10/13 at 18:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes: > > > Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do > > support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we > > (well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy shou

Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as > this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd > be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at > least others can tr

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

Thorsten, On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum debian.org> writes: > > I think that it would be a failure of the Debian project if we had to > > have a GR about such a technical decision. I think that we need to > > trust that the Technical Committee