Re: overriding udev rules

On 09/10/2013 02:50 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 26.08.13 01:22, Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org) wrote: > >> >> On 08/24/2013 03:53 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> There is a very clear standard that distinguishes globally and locally >>> administered addresses. >>> >>> While you would po

Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev

On 11/14/12 22:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> But anyway, we're getting tired of their ADHD-driven changes just to >> change things > > TBH, I'm getting tired of people who are constantly

Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev

On 11/14/12 19:53, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > What are the problems they try to address? Removal of features, broken build system, etc. Just the little things that make things exciting (and we prefer things to be boring so we can sleep at night) Plus an unpredictable upstream that can't be trusted

Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev

On 11/14/12 18:37, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Thomas Goirand [2012.11.14.0412 +0100]: >> As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesting about the >> insanity Kay and Lennart have done to udev, > > I cannot help but notice that Kay and Lennart were both > Gentoo-freaks when t

Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host

On 09/02/12 20:43, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Hi! > Just for the record (and I might be wrong with this information, > because I don't have it from a "official" Gentoo source): > I heard from a Gentoo dev that they will switch from OpenRC to > systemd, No. > and find the possibility very funny that

Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host

On 09/01/12 04:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:28:27PM +0300, Serge wrote: >> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone >> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and >> have Debian forgotten and dead. S

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/09/12 21:58, Fernando Lemos wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 05/09/12 21:37, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >>> ]] Philipp Kern >>> >>>> You will not, however, get a conffile update prompt when the system >

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/09/12 21:37, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Philipp Kern > >> You will not, however, get a conffile update prompt when the system >> file changes (e.g. to update your own local copy to incorporate the >> fix). > This is something I'm pondering if we should handle in either a systemd > trigger o

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/08/12 00:04, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On May 07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> Means that services can be started (and stopped?) in response to events >> such as hardware discovery, incoming network connections, the status of >> other services, and so on. (With dependencies still taken into >> acc

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/02/12 04:55, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > On 27/04/12 19:33, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> ]] Martin Wuertele >> >>> * Josselin Mouette [2012-04-27 09:53]: >>> Le jeudi 26 avril 2012 à 22:29 +0200, Svante Signell a écrit : >> Yes of course, because event-driven init systems hav

Re: non-event-based init systems are unfixable [Was: Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian]

On 04/30/12 02:09, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:33:16PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: >>> Isn't mounting filesystems, which can depend on the network, part of >>> the boot process? >> Yes, but how do you check if th

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/27/12 15:54, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 26 avril 2012 à 22:29 +0200, Svante Signell a écrit : >>> Yes of course, because event-driven init systems have *always* been >>> *only* about mounting USB devices. >> Then explain the _real_ reasons for having an event driven boot system! > B

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/27/12 03:08, Ben Hutchings wrote: [snip] > >> Don't assume dynamic device detection is only about personal machines > >> or USB. It's useful in a much wider context. >> Agreed it is *useful* in many cases. >> >> But I also agree that it is not *required* in *all* cases. >> >> I believe Debia

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/26/12 01:49, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 25, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems, >> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy > Not true. systemd and upstart do not m

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/26/12 00:42, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 08:52:59PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> I'd like to ask you to evaluate OpenRC as candidate to replace the "old" >> have-always-been-there sysvinit/insserv init scripts in Debian. > While as others h

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/04/12 01:58, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:54:11AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 05/03/12 02:16, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> On 02.05.2012 19:05, Martin Wuertele wrote: >>>> I don't think this is a better example. Actually I think

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/04/12 00:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Patrick Lauer > >> Not this decade - we're ahead of the pack, as usual ;) > So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git > snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) > What a weird idea. 1.0_pre

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/03/12 23:16, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: >> RPM has now support for ~ in latest git. > oh shiny! thanks for that pointer! anybody know by chance whether gentoo is > jumping on this too? Not this decade - we're ahe

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/03/12 02:16, Michael Biebl wrote: > On 02.05.2012 19:05, Martin Wuertele wrote: >> I don't think this is a better example. Actually I think this is an >> example where udev/mdev could launch/stop bluetoothd. > Long running daemons should *not* be started by udev. udev is *not* a > service man

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/27/12 18:50, Martin Wuertele wrote: > * Josselin Mouette [2012-04-27 09:53]: > >> Le jeudi 26 avril 2012 à 22:29 +0200, Svante Signell a écrit : Yes of course, because event-driven init systems have *always* been *only* about mounting USB devices. >>> >>> Then explain the _real_

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/27/12 08:02, Russ Allbery wrote: > Petter Reinholdtsen writes: > >> Say you want to mount a network disk during boot. This depend on the >> network being configured. This in turn might depend on a DHCP reply >> from a DHCP server, and to send the DHCP request the network card need >> to b

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 04/27/12 03:32, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:08:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:03:17PM -0400, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> I believe Debian still supports running locally compiled kernels which >>> do not depend on udev, and that some setups d

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

/etc/init.d/net.wlan0 start (Although there is a considerable overlap between rules and actions) For me there's no reason why udev / mdev can't stay standalone, integrating it into the startup scripts doesn't feel right. Have a nice day, Patrick Lauer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f980e8e.6020...@gentoo.org

RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( ope...@gentoo.org ) or meet us for a beer or two. Thanks for your consideration, Patrick Lauer Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f97f3ab.4090...@gentoo.org