Jon Dowland writes:
> It completely predates Debian releasing non-Linux
> kernels and is not mentioned in the social contract. That some
> people feel it justifies (or even mandates) non-Linux kernels in
> Debian is a retcon. pf, ZFS; these are valid reasons stated that
> support kFreeBSD. "I i
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110719 22:52]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The decision is already taken that Debian can run on BSD kernels. So
> > if someone wants to revert that decision, it'd need an GR. Not the
> > other way.
>
> That decision was made without a GR, and can manifestly be revers
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> ZFS is a pretty big one.
> It is about as stable as BTRFS on Linux, so I do not see either a
> compelling argument right now.
I know from actual, real-world testing and usage of specifically Debian
kFreeBSD that ZFS is sta
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Again, why?
> > ZFS is a pretty big one.
> It is about as stable as BTRFS on Linux, so I do not see either a
> compelling argument right now.
Do you have any data to back up that statement? The
On Jul 20, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Again, why?
> > > ZFS is a pretty big one.
> > It is about as stable as BTRFS on Linux, so I do not see either a
> > compelling argument right now.
> BTRFS ? stable ? You must be living in the future.
My point.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Di
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Again, why?
> > ZFS is a pretty big one.
> It is about as stable as BTRFS on Linux, so I do not see either a
> compelling argument right now.
BTRFS ? stable ? You must be living in the future.
On Jul 20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Again, why?
> ZFS is a pretty big one.
It is about as stable as BTRFS on Linux, so I do not see either a
compelling argument right now.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:37:07AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I am among the people who are proud to see that we managed to achieve
> Debian kfreebsd.
Same here, I've always mentioned GNU/kFreeBSD as one of the things I'm
most proud of in the Squeeze release. I'd be no less proud of seeing
De
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:52:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Where it came from is less important than what it represents today to some of
> us. I believe I can read in your post that you don't like it; but certainly
> this is not true for all of us.
It completely predates Debian releasing n
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:26:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Frankly, I'd be somewhat surprised if some time after the release of wheezy
> (but still before wheezy+1), usage of Debian kFreeBSD did not surpass that of
> the i386 port.
I'd be *very* surprised. I can only imagine this happenin
* Uoti Urpala [110719 23:31]:
> Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > Debian is the 'Universal' operating system, and many of our developers
> > (including myself) pride themselves on that. We port to many
> > architectures, we port to multiple kernels. It's one of the defining
> > features of
Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 21:26 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> kFreeBSD is currently released as a "technology preview". With that, we
> mean it works, but it isn't necessarily ready yet for prime usage. The
> fact that there currently aren't many users yet isn't surprising in that
> light. H
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Not to mention that users who customised their init scripts will
> suddenly have to figure out how to do the same stuff with systemd - with
> no automatic upgrade path.
No, existing init scripts work with systemd, as stated already in this
t
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Thus, upstream has to jump through a large heap of hoops to support
>> systemd properly (and if not going for proper systemd support, making
>> use of its new features, I see no point in writing a service file to
>> begin with)
Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 22:30 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> So if trolling is on add another one: it doesn't have udev
Which makes it impossible to support a large variety of hardware now
that the HAL crapware is going out.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUB
I have to agree with Tollef here, the number of uninformed comments
(and even of respected figures like Wouter) is hurting this discussion.
Please people, if you don't want to see this discussion turn into a
troll-flamefest, don't treat it like if it was one!
I am among the people who are proud to
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> kFreeBSD is currently released as a "technology preview". With that, we
>> mean it works, but it isn't necessarily ready yet for prime usage. The
>> fact that there currently aren't many users yet isn't surprising in that
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:31:37PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Debian is the 'Universal' operating system
>
> "Universal operating system" is a phrase that was added to our website
> most likely by Bruce Perens in April 1997. (He posted about it to
> -private then; there w
[Joey Hess]
> "Universal operating system" is a phrase that was added to our
> website most likely by Bruce Perens in April 1997. (He posted about
> it to -private then; there was no discussion.)
Huh. I always assumed Bdale coined it for his DPL platform.
Turns out this thread wasn't a _total_ w
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:52:30PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> > Proof by assertion isn't an argument. If you think kfreebsd sucks then
> > you're entitled to that opinion, but please don't seek to frame it as
> > some sort of consensus direction on
Iustin Pop debian.org> writes:
> In my experience, programs written with portability in mind are much
> more resilient to breakage, and thus over time they survive bit-rot much
> better. Whenever I see a program that is explicitly non-portable, I tend
> to discount it in favour of portable alterna
Adam D. Barratt adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> Proof by assertion isn't an argument. If you think kfreebsd sucks then
> you're entitled to that opinion, but please don't seek to frame it as
> some sort of consensus direction on the part of the project because
> "it's obvious".
What I consider ob
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:59:13PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > IMAO, a statement of (paraphrased) 'portability is for weenies' isn't
>
> Keeping portability in mind is a good thing especially if you're doing
> something
> that is easily implementable with
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Debian is the 'Universal' operating system
"Universal operating system" is a phrase that was added to our website
most likely by Bruce Perens in April 1997. (He posted about it to
-private then; there was no discussion.) Not very coincidentally, Debian
made 3 press release
Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> Debian is the 'Universal' operating system, and many of our developers
> (including myself) pride themselves on that. We port to many
> architectures, we port to multiple kernels. It's one of the defining
> features of Debian: you can run it /anywhere/
This i
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 20:51 +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 19:48 +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> >> There was a discussion about whether future Debian would be
> >> based on kFreeBSD, and kFreeBSD failed that on its own merits, not du
On Jul 19, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > So far we have one person who likes pf and one who suspects that maybe
> > FreeBSD could behave better when severely overloaded.
> So if trolling is on add another one: it doesn't have udev
Hint: just because you cannot answer a question, it is not "trolling"
Andreas Barth wrote:
> The decision is already taken that Debian can run on BSD kernels. So
> if someone wants to revert that decision, it'd need an GR. Not the
> other way.
That decision was made without a GR, and can manifestly be reversed
without a GR. Otherwise the release team's architecture
Adam D. Barratt adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 19:48 +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> There was a discussion about whether future Debian would be
>> based on kFreeBSD, and kFreeBSD failed that on its own merits, not due to any
>> consideration of systemd (or actually there wasn't
]] "brian m. carlson"
Hi,
| On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:31:59AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > | Also, I've installed systemd on my laptop and it logs almost nothing
| > | to the console ("verbose" on the kernel command line does not help).
| >
| > try doing systemd.log_level=debug as documen
* Marco d'Itri [2011-07-19 21:39]:
> So far we have one person who likes pf and one who suspects that maybe
> FreeBSD could behave better when severely overloaded.
So if trolling is on add another one: it doesn't have udev
Kthxgoodby
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.deb
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:25:19PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Even if you disagree about systemd upstream's views on portability that does
> not change the quality of the software and how it performs on Linux. IMO
> attitudes like "if upstream holds such heretical views then their software is
> no
Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > > kFreeBSD is hardly the only reason why systemd is a bad idea for Debian.
> >
> > It's the only argument I've seen you mention. And I don't remember seeing
> > convincing arguments against it from anyone else in the thread either.
>
> Pfff. You're the one
On Jul 19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Oh, I get it, we should throw kFreeBSD out because Marco d'Itri thinks
> it's a bad idea?
No, but if you believe it to be useful the least you could do is to
explain why.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 19:48 +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> There was a discussion about whether future Debian would be
> based on kFreeBSD, and kFreeBSD failed that on its own merits, not due to any
> consideration of systemd (or actually there wasn't much of a discussion, but
> that was only because
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110719 01:36]:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > I know I would personally be a lot happier with a Debian that supports
> > systemd functionality than with a Debian that can run on a BSD kernel.
>
> Well, while we're putting stakes in the ground, I suppose I'll hammer mi
Peter Samuelson p12n.org> writes:
> [Uoti Urpala]
> > IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting
> > it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's
> > desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would
> > only be justifiable if ther
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > kFreeBSD is currently released as a "technology preview". With that, we
> > mean it works, but it isn't necessarily ready yet for prime usage. The
> > fact that there currently aren't many users y
On Jul 19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> kFreeBSD is currently released as a "technology preview". With that, we
> mean it works, but it isn't necessarily ready yet for prime usage. The
> fact that there currently aren't many users yet isn't surprising in that
> light. However, as the port matures, it
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:59:13PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > > > Debian/kFreeBSD is here to stay, it's not going away. With that as a
> > > > given, systemd is suddenly a lot less interesting.
> > >
> > > Once you stop taking things as a given there are a
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Uoti Urpala]
>> IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting
>> it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's
>> desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would
>> only be
[Uoti Urpala]
> IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting
> it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's
> desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would
> only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why kFreeBSD
> i
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:31:59AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Also, I've installed systemd on my laptop and it logs almost nothing
> | to the console ("verbose" on the kernel command line does not help).
>
> try doing systemd.log_level=debug as documented in the man page?
It's hard to acce
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Gergely Nagy balabit.hu> writes:
>> Uoti Urpala pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>>
>> >> Whatever its features, if we have to jump through a large heap of hoops
>> >> to get it to work at all, or to make life for maintainers of daemon
>> >> packages not a complete nightmare, it's no
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Gergely Nagy
>
> | FYI, there are upstreams who provide initscripts in their source
> | package. systemd is yet another burden on them that they have to
> | maintain, and makes their lives miserable.
>
> You make it sound like systemd requires you to make an extra ef
Gergely Nagy balabit.hu> writes:
> Uoti Urpala pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>
> >> Whatever its features, if we have to jump through a large heap of hoops
> >> to get it to work at all, or to make life for maintainers of daemon
> >> packages not a complete nightmare, it's not likely to become the defaul
Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 16:36 +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> FYI, there are upstreams who provide initscripts in their source
> package.
And how many of them comply with the Debian policy without needing to be
completely rewritten?
Let’s talk about real cases, please.
--
.''`. Jossel
Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > > Debian/kFreeBSD is here to stay, it's not going away. With that as a
> > > given,
> > > systemd is suddenly a lot less interesting.
> >
> > Once you stop taking things as a given there are a lot more opportunities
> > for
> > improvement.
>
> kFreeBSD
]] Gergely Nagy
| FYI, there are upstreams who provide initscripts in their source
| package. systemd is yet another burden on them that they have to
| maintain, and makes their lives miserable.
You make it sound like systemd requires you to make an extra effort to
make stuff work. It doesn't.
]] Wouter Verhelst
| It's of course your prerogative to have that opinion, but (as a
| maintainer of a source package that ships two initscripts) I disagree
| with it. Especially since I doubt that supporting NBD exports with
| systemd is going to be possible, at all, given what I know about it.
Uoti Urpala writes:
>> Whatever its features, if we have to jump through a large heap of hoops
>> to get it to work at all, or to make life for maintainers of daemon
>> packages not a complete nightmare, it's not likely to become the default
>> in Debian any time soon.
>
> I think the life of man
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:12:33PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels is
> > > or
> > > should be a "project's goal", and how
Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels is or
> > should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing to lose for
> > the sake of that goal.
>
> Debian/
> | I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of recoding everything in C if
> | the initialiation code lived in separate binaries.
> system/ systemd-fsck* systemd-quotacheck* systemd-shutdown*
> systemd-vconsole-setup*
[...]
Interesting. Looking at the code, I hadn't noticed these get compiled
into
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
| > It's not like boot speed would be the only reason to avoid shell.
|
| I don't think that avoiding shell implies that all the distribution-
| specific initialisation code must be hard-wired in pid 1. I'd be more
| sympathetic to the idea of recoding everything in C if t
> It's not like boot speed would be the only reason to avoid shell.
I don't think that avoiding shell implies that all the distribution-
specific initialisation code must be hard-wired in pid 1. I'd be more
sympathetic to the idea of recoding everything in C if the initiali-
sation code lived in
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:48:35PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> By the way, I think "in exchange for faster boot" is focusing too narrowly on
> boot speed. It's not like boot speed would be the only reason to avoid shell.
You do realize that you're talking to a mailinglist populated mostly by
peopl
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels is or
> should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing to lose for
> the sake of that goal.
Debian/kFreeBSD is here to stay, it's not going away. Wi
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 04:03:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:14:39PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I'm sure that systemd does much better than a traditional sysvinit boot
> > > with
> > > /bin/bash and no dependency-based booting. But then, so does Debian's
> > >
]] "brian m. carlson"
Hi,
| Also, I've installed systemd on my laptop and it logs almost nothing
| to the console ("verbose" on the kernel command line does not help).
try doing systemd.log_level=debug as documented in the man page?
cheers,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's jus
Steve Langasek debian.org> writes:
> > Tradeoff? What tradeoff?
>
> The tradeoff of hard-coding policy into C code in exchange for faster boot.
What's actually hard-coded so hard that it would have negative effects? What do
you actually *lose* here? The systemd model prefers to avoid shell scrip
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels
> is or should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing
> to lose for the sake of that goal. I know I would personally be a lot
> happier with a Debia
Uoti Urpala writes:
> I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels
> is or should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing to
> lose for the sake of that goal.
I believe that it should be, and I'm willing to lose systemd for that
goal, although hopefully
Russ Allbery debian.org> writes:
> Uoti Urpala pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>
> > Upstart is still used in Ubuntu but doesn't seem to have much future
> > elsewhere. There's quite a lot of interest in systemd for Debian too,
> > whereas I've seen few people express interest in Upstart.
>
> Funny, my p
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:14:39PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I'm sure that systemd does much better than a traditional sysvinit boot with
> > /bin/bash and no dependency-based booting. But then, so does Debian's
> > current boot system, and so does upstart; and neither of the latter two
> > in
>> I have not seen any serious attempt at measuring how big this impact
>> actually is
> I'd expect some important differences between shell script based init
> and systemd-type init
Yeah, that's everybody's intuition too. But Steve is right -- it would
be good to see some real benchmarks.
-- J
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Russ Allbery (18/07/2011):
>> The upstart maintainers have expressed considerably more willingness to
>> date to work with Debian on meeting our project's goals and
>> incorporating those changes into the upstream release.
> For reference, that would likely be:
> htt
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:18:14PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Steve Langasek debian.org> writes:
> > I'm sure that systemd does much better than a traditional sysvinit boot with
> > /bin/bash and no dependency-based booting. But then, so does Debian's
> > current boot system, and so does upstart
Russ Allbery (18/07/2011):
> The upstart maintainers have expressed considerably more willingness
> to date to work with Debian on meeting our project's goals and
> incorporating those changes into the upstream release.
For reference, that would likely be:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/200
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Upstart is still used in Ubuntu but doesn't seem to have much future
> elsewhere. There's quite a lot of interest in systemd for Debian too,
> whereas I've seen few people express interest in Upstart.
Funny, my personal experience has been the exact opposite, including the
Steve Langasek debian.org> writes:
> I'm sure that systemd does much better than a traditional sysvinit boot with
> /bin/bash and no dependency-based booting. But then, so does Debian's
> current boot system, and so does upstart; and neither of the latter two
> involve grandiose claims of a "shel
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:22:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > In fact, a minimal systemd system will win in almost very aspect against
> > a remotely similarly powerful sysvinit system: you will need much fewer
> > processe
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> In fact, a minimal systemd system will win in almost very aspect against
> a remotely similarly powerful sysvinit system: you will need much fewer
> processes to boot. That means much shorter boot times.
This is, as far as I'm a
73 matches
Mail list logo
