On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
> > sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
> > whether one is willing to release
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
> sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
> whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL
> - vs. the GPL. But while s
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:42:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> > FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
> That allows Canonical to make
Ian Jackson writes:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
>> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
>
> That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code
On Dec 04, 2012, at 06:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
>engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
>troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
Not to diminish your own concerns, but it doesn't bother me.
Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
engage in the dual licensing business model).
On Dec 01, 2012, at 07:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their
>CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the
>code, but you retain your own copyrights.
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
with embedde
> start-stop-daemon already supports waiting for processes to exit when
> stopping them. See the --retry option.
Isn't that open to race conditions, as new processes could be spawn with the
same pid in the meanwhile?
> You can't call waitpid on processes that aren't your children.
True sorry,
Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> Just opened a bug[1] about the issue, since many daemons use start-stop-
> daemon, fixing it there would solve many race conditions.
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694980
You can't call waitpid on processes that aren't your children.
start-stop
> Those are also race conditions, and bugs. If the stop and start commands
> return control before the action is completed, the results cannot be relied
> on. The 'restart' command is not the only way that an admin may
> programmatically stop and start a service; you might do this with something
On 01.12.2012 21:11, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:39:35PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> More over, most of the sleep calls you will find in init scripts (and I
>> believe that is what your grep shows, because that's the case on my own
>> laptop...) are because of:
>
>> c
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:39:35PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> More over, most of the sleep calls you will find in init scripts (and I
> believe that is what your grep shows, because that's the case on my own
> laptop...) are because of:
> case "${1}" in
> restart|reload|force-reload)
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> the discussion that systemd is a bad design because it uses the same
> configuration file syntax as Windows ini files or XDG .desktop files,
> adding the statement that these are too difficult to parse.
If you are referin
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
>> here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
>
> Not really, IMO.
>
> Personally, I'm not comfortable
On 11/30/2012 08:34 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Why are those sleeps there? Because the use of init scripts ensures that
> we're always racing the kernel, instead of being able to respond directly to
> events when they happen. Nearly every one of those sleeps represents *two*
> bugs: the bug the
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 03:17:03PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Please stop fueling these threads already (especially when the subject
> is not meaningful at all).
Hey, didn't I say several times already that I would like to leave it?
Please don't address me, I have been tired of this for se
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:12:15PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/01/2012 05:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > systemd is not Lennart, he is one of the many contributors.
> This statement is simply false.
Thomas, John Paul Adrian, seriously, we have had enough of these debates
on -
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:12:15PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/01/2012 05:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > systemd is not Lennart, he is one of the many contributors.
>
> This statement is simply false.
>
> I just checked with "git blame". Out of 381 473 lines of code in
> the
On 12/01/2012 05:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> systemd is not Lennart, he is one of the many contributors.
This statement is simply false.
I just checked with "git blame". Out of 381 473 lines of code in
the Git, git blame reports 152 787 lines with "Poettering" in it.
That's more tha
On 01.12.2012 06:18, Michael Biebl wrote:
> For b/ there is already a bug report for initramfs-tools [1]. It's
> probably too late to get that into wheezy. But we should follow up there
> to get that into wheezy.
^
jessie, of course.
--
Why is it that all o
On Vi, 30 nov 12, 18:03:41, Harald Jenny wrote:
>
> Yes a dedicated list (maybe just a temporary one) especially meant for
> the early adopter/tester of systemd/upstart/OpenRC, preferrable people
> who are DDs/DMs themselves and can describe/triage problems properly...
I don't think this would be
Le samedi 01 décembre 2012 à 09:52 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
> > > makin
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:31:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:00:01AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Systemd does much better than its competitors as a social activity.
>
> ROTFL.
>
> I don't have much to say about the quality of Lennert's code, but his
> social ski
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:51:47PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=PC68KCF
> >
> > the most recent processor you can find there was released in January
> > 2012
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
> > making use of a separate /usr is still possible, even if you think it's
> > totall
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
> here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
Not really, IMO.
Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
the very same reason
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:00:01AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Systemd does much better than its competitors as a social activity.
ROTFL.
I don't have much to say about the quality of Lennert's code, but his
social skills are sorely lacking.
--
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time so
On 30.11.2012 03:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> that's fine; I've been convinced myself that it's not reasonable to have a
> system with /usr on a separate partition and expect that to work without an
> initramfs, and think we *should* simplify our overall architecture rather
> than continuing to put
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 05:04:25PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Bjørn Mork
> > "The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for
> >systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted,
> >otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work
> >pr
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:32:46PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > Claiming that it will work for everyone and that
> > > anyone not being able to name a problem existing now has no arguments
> > > does not help.
> > Do System V Init or Upstart work in EVERY single use case?
> Actually, all
> I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
> normal standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things
> about your setup which I would argue are not standard (see below)
Well no but are you trying to argue that my problems are due to my kernel
configu
On 30.11.2012 18:43, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/30/2012 11:57 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I never meant to start any redundant discussion about which init
system
is best. And, as Russ already pointed out, we're not going to make
that decision this time. So please, just leave it for no
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Jon Dowland [121130 16:06]:
> > I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
> > normal
> > standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
> > setup which I would argue ar
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Jon Dowland [121130 16:06]:
> > I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a
> > normal
> > standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
> > setup which I would argue ar
On 11/30/2012 11:57 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Sorry, but if I remember correctly, it was you who came here to
> discuss Gentoo-related problems on a Debian development list and who
> admitted that he enjoyed starting flame wars because you were bored.
>
> Honestly, you should remember
* Jon Dowland [121130 16:06]:
> I do not agree that reconfiguring your machine to avoid an initrd is a normal
> standard desktop configuration. There's also several other things about your
> setup which I would argue are not standard (see below)
Will Debian come by default with initrds on all rel
Hi Andrei
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:57:28PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 30 nov 12, 17:47:20, Harald Jenny wrote:
> >
> > Maybe some sort of mailing list could be dedicated to a discussion about
> > the actual usage of different init system so people may share their
> > experiences?
>
On Vi, 30 nov 12, 17:47:20, Harald Jenny wrote:
>
> Maybe some sort of mailing list could be dedicated to a discussion about
> the actual usage of different init system so people may share their
> experiences?
Do you mean some list other than debian-user?
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discus
Hi again :-)
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:35:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I really think this is a case where personal experience is going to speak
> louder than any possible argument, which is why I think the next step is
> to make it simple and documented to switch init systems and see how
Hi Russ
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:04:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Please, let's *stop talking about this*, apart from the much more
> specific, straightforward, and *useful* discussion of what further work is
> required to enable those who wish to do so to run systemd as their init
> proc
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:12:14PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Harald,
Hi Adrian
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote:
> > I have tried systemd but as it does not support the Debian extensions to
> > cryptsetup (namely the crypttab keyscript parameter
On 11/30/2012 09:10 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> This thread was started by an "anti-systemd" poster
Since I started this thread, I guess you're talking about me.
I do not accept that you categorize me this way.
*No*, I'm not an "anti-systemd" guy. I believe that systemd
is nice, that it has very coo
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:51:24PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 07:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > And for me, the most annoying thing is the neverending circlejerk of
> > systemd bashing on a non-technical basis. If anyone of these people
> > would really take the time
On 11/30/2012 07:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> And for me, the most annoying thing is the neverending circlejerk of
> systemd bashing on a non-technical basis. If anyone of these people
> would really take the time to read into the design rationales
So, basically, anyone who do not agr
On Nov 30, 2012, at 09:14 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is
>somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners
>in mind.
In the abstract, the non-profit or for-profit status of an organization is
little indi
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:19:22PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> I am using systemd on my laptop, i have a very default system configuration,
> (except that i compile my own kernel to avoid initrd)…
^^
> …if I, with a normal, standard desktop co
> I can't say anything about the fetchmail problem, but I just tried to
> reproduce the problem you explained in #693522 and it works on my
> installation.
>
> So we will probably need more input to debug this.
Please post on the bug what kind of test you want me to do.
I was just pointing out h
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:19:22PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693522
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694048
I can't say anything about the fetchmail problem, but I just tried to
reproduce the problem you explained in #693522
> Again, I am constantly asking here what these reasons might be and yet
> people always come with strawman arguments.
You should bother to read the answers to your question then :-)
I am using systemd on my laptop, i have a very default system configuration,
(except that i compile my own kern
]] Barry Warsaw
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> >Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves
> >a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software,
> >should it?
>
> In an ideal world maybe it shouldn
]] Uoti Urpala
> > But to the extent that we have to pick winners and
> > losers (and, to be clear, I think it's premature to do that for init
> > systems),
>
> I think there's already enough evidence to show that systemd is
> clearly the best choice. How much more would you expect to have bef
Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 30/11/2012 10:16, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > However, current PulseAudio is still quite buggy. But I wouldn't place
> Is it, really? I haven't noticed any major issues with Pulseaudio in the past
> couple of years running Ubuntu. That and sound has worked out of the box with
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
>
> > Would you expect anyone who thinks such activity is not useful to help
> > with it? This would seem to lead to the absurd conclusion that
> > expressing a negative view/evaluation of anything would always be just
> > noise, regardless of technical a
On 30/11/2012 10:16, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
>> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz has written on Friday, 30 November, at 1:04:
>>> Absolutely true. And this is actually why I don't understand so many
>>> people get so emotional when it comes to software like systemd or
>>> Pulse-Au
Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz has written on Friday, 30 November, at 1:04:
> >Absolutely true. And this is actually why I don't understand so many
> >people get so emotional when it comes to software like systemd or
> >Pulse-Audio.
>
> Well, without any emotions. In l
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Would you expect anyone who thinks such activity is not useful to help
> with it? This would seem to lead to the absurd conclusion that
> expressing a negative view/evaluation of anything would always be just
> noise, regardless of technical arguments or anything else.
If t
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Free software is a social activity. The past history of qmail should
> >> be informative here (or, for that matter, both gcc and glibc, which had
> >> to go through disruptive forks to sort out long-term issues). One of
> >>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:51:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
> > > > daemons in
Hello!
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz has written on Friday, 30 November, at 1:04:
>Absolutely true. And this is actually why I don't understand so many
>people get so emotional when it comes to software like systemd or
>Pulse-Audio.
Well, without any emotions. In last 2 years I've installed
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:04:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is something that you're all (collectively) enabling via your
>> behavior of constantly repeating the same arguments. Someone has to
>> stop. Preferrably everyone at once.
> Why should my
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:04:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> At this point, the single most annoying thing about systemd is the
> >> people who are advocating it on debian-devel at every
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> At this point, the single most annoying thing about systemd is the
>> people who are advocating it on debian-devel at every opportunity and
>> seem incapable of shutting up about it for more than
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:43:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The people who repeatedly advocate systemd on debian-devel are not
> representative of the whole development community. I suspect most of them
> aren't even *part* of the systemd development community.
No. But I am using systemd bot
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
> > > daemons interact very closely and integration of the sources was the
> > > natu
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> No one is expecting you to help, so your statement that you don't think
> this activity is useful is just noise. One of the features of free
> software is that there is no need to concern onself with the (presumably
> billions) of peo
"Andrej N. Gritsenko" writes:
> Uoti Urpala has written on Friday, 30 November, at 1:00:
> [...]
>> I think there's already enough evidence to show that systemd is clearly
>> the best choice. How much more would you expect to have before it would
>> not be "premature" any more?
> I shou
Hello!
Uoti Urpala has written on Friday, 30 November, at 1:00:
[...]
>I think there's already enough evidence to show that systemd is clearly
>the best choice. How much more would you expect to have before it would
>not be "premature" any more?
I should thank you all, John Paul Adri
Uoti Urpala writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Free software is a social activity. The past history of qmail should
>> be informative here (or, for that matter, both gcc and glibc, which had
>> to go through disruptive forks to sort out long-term issues). One of
>> the determiners of the long-ter
Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
>
> > Yes, I do accept vocals against systemd, but only if these are actually
> > valid arguments. Because I want software development to be driven on
> > technical merits and not on sympathies against or for certain people
> > neither the s
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [121129 21:14]:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:22:41PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > As our world has not
> > yet seen bug-free software handling every single situation the authors
> > did not think about properly, the expectation of what happens if one
> > runs into
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> Yes, I do accept vocals against systemd, but only if these are actually
> valid arguments. Because I want software development to be driven on
> technical merits and not on sympathies against or for certain people
> neither the stance to reject any modern devel
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:22:41PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I think noone claims that systemd would not be the superior design
> in a world where there is bug-free, perfect software prepared to handle
> every possible situation it will be thrown into.
Yes, but this is valid for any other s
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 03:40:47AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We can ignore what happens to other downstreams of udev,
> however I don't think that's a good idea to do so.
Why bother other downstreams if they don't complain? I find it rather
intrusive to post on the lists of other downstreams,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=PC68KCF
>
> the most recent processor you can find there was released in January
> 2012.
Yeah, someone else posted this information already.
How much are these instructio
On 11/30/2012 01:18 AM, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:55:13AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> However, you are running Gentoo and rebuild your kernel, why would
>> you bother with such thing as kernel modules and initrd? The thing is,
>> many (most? all?) Gentoo user, as far as I
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [121129 18:12]:
> This is actually a true valid point which I personally would accept as
> an argument against systemd. Without looking into the details, this
> seems to be something that can be fixed by a new upload, doesn't it?
Almost any actual specific problem can
On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves
>a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software,
>should it?
In an ideal world maybe it shouldn't, but in truth it is for both
2012/11/29 Wouter Verhelst :
> glibc and the kernel is developed by the same group of companies. Both
> interact very closely and integration of the sources was the natural
> consequence.
Please, *DON"T* :-)
I've tired of this crap on illumos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@l
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:55:13AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> However, you are running Gentoo and rebuild your kernel, why would
> you bother with such thing as kernel modules and initrd? The thing is,
> many (most? all?) Gentoo user, as far as I understand (I'm not a
> Gentoo user), do not use
Hi Harald,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote:
> I have tried systemd but as it does not support the Debian extensions to
> cryptsetup (namely the crypttab keyscript parameter) it is not a
> valuable alternative for me - sysvinit and upstart btw do support them,
> I did n
On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> There are valid arguments for forking udev, but /usr support is not one
> of them; we will just move /usr mounting to the initrd if it cannot be
> mounted later.
On the Debian side of things, you are probably right, since using an
initrd is ok in (n
Dear Adrian
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> Again, I am constantly asking here what these reasons might be and yet
> people always come with strawman arguments. I mean, seriously we had
> the discussion that systemd is a bad design because it uses th
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2012 à 15:24 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> Now if someone wants to fork the particular bits of upstream software so
> making use of a separate /usr is still possible, even if you think it's
> totally useless, are you going to stop them.
Wouter, I think higher of you than
+++ John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2012-11-24 18:30 +0100]:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:02PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> > > and accept
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Well, systemd and udev are developed by the same developers. Both
> > daemons interact very closely and integration of the sources was the
> > natural consequence.
>
> udev and pulseaudio are developed by the same developers. Bot
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:02:20PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:12:23AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > P.S: By the way, there's still an ongoing m68k porting effort. Please
> > respect
> > this work as well.
>
> I've been a vivid Amiga user since 1991* and
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:49:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Now, I may add, I have no will to discuss it with you
> > anyway, after reading you impose on my your
> > partitioning scheme, and would like me to use my
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:03:21PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:52:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 11/25/2012 01:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart?
> >
> > Well, isn't it the oppo
]] Bjørn Mork
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> > ]] Bjørn Mork
> >
> >> "The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for
> >>systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted,
> >>otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work
> >>properly. Examp
On 11/29/2012 01:33 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps
>> to waiting while things are building ... :)
>> I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely
>> that there
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Bjørn Mork
>
>> "The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for
>>systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted,
>>otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work
>>properly. Example configuration options to in
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps
> to waiting while things are building ... :)
> I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely
> that there will be any outcome), but I also find it fun.
I'm
I had a half-drafted message to the same effect, but deleted it
earlier. Thanks Neil for speaking up. I have to say Thomas, many
recent messages from you across many threads, mostly on -devel
but also elsewhere, have seemed to have very little in the way
of polite, constructive content, advancing t
On 11/28/2012 11:55 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up
>> everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly :
>> it's not only about Lennart and systemd g
]] Bjørn Mork
> "The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for
>systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted,
>otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work
>properly. Example configuration options to install things the
>traditiona
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up
> everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly :
> it's not only about Lennart and systemd guys, and I should take the
> blame for not highlig
On 11/28/2012 07:17 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>>> However, it's the opinion of the systemd
>>> primary upstream authors that having /usr on a separate fs is a bad idea
>>> since there are tools that (primarily) some udev rules use,
On 11/28/2012 08:46 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Yes, the Debian package is OK and I assume it will continue to be. But
> I believe Thomas was referring to the recently (udev 176) changed
> upstream default. See e.g.
> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/udev.html :
>
> "udev configura
On 11/28/2012 07:16 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Thomas Goirand (28/11/2012):
>> That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr.
> May I suggest some fact checking? Try “dpkg -L udev” for a start.
>
> Rules moved from /etc to /lib. Not to /usr.
Woops, my memory is failing. Thank
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Thomas Goirand (28/11/2012):
>> That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr.
>
> May I suggest some fact checking? Try “dpkg -L udev” for a start.
Yes, the Debian package is OK and I assume it will continue to be. But
I believe Thomas was referrin
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
