Quoting Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it):
> On Jul 09, Alessio Treglia wrote:
>
> > I think that it would be valuable for our users to keep the
> > non-default init system working on Jessie for those who do neither
> > intend nor need to switch to systemd.
> I suggest less thinking and more coding th
On Jul 09, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> I think that it would be valuable for our users to keep the
> non-default init system working on Jessie for those who do neither
> intend nor need to switch to systemd.
I suggest less thinking and more coding then, because an updated
systemd-shim still has not
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>- existing installations of older (pre-jessie) Debian may be
> upgraded to our new standard init system systemd, but only
> after the user has been suitably warned, e.g. via a debconf
> propmpt at priority "medium" (i.e. no
t...@debian.org wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>>with this constant bickering and sniping. If you must do it, start the
>>GR and see how that goes. I even offer to second it just to help get
>
>Can you help formulate? I do not feel my English skills are
>up to that.
I'm sorry, I don't really have
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 08:13 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
> > any of its reverse dependencies either.
>
> Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
Norbert Preining wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> If they donât need any of the systemd features, I guess they donât need
>> any of its reverse dependencies either.
>
>Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
I donât, but I want most KDE packages, so
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
> any of its reverse dependencies either.
Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
NM was working long time without systemd.
Don't spread wrong information.
No
Le vendredi 04 juillet 2014 à 15:09 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit :
> But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
> software to replace systemd?
If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
any of its reverse dependencies either.
So why do they co
me:
>> (I did find his comment funny -- actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty
>> funny --, but I realise that this is an international mailing list and
>> that Austrian-Japanese humour is not necessarily obvious to everyone.)
Tollef Fog Heen:
> Humour [...] does not work very well on large list
The Wanderer dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:18:12PM -0400]:
> > It must work without systemd well enough to be able to cleanly reboot
> > the system from the GUI, after upgrading.
> >
> > Anything beyond that is nice-to-have, but definitely NOT required.
>
> I, for one, would be highly displeased
* Juliusz Chroboczek [140704 23:00]:
> (I did find his comment funny --
> actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty funny --, but I realise that this
> is an international mailing list and that Austrian-Japanese humour is not
> necessarily obvious to everyone.)
I'd suggest you stop with the country-
On 07/04/2014 10:28 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> 4) all init systems currently in Debian are supported in jessie;
We don't need a GR to support this option. Of course, all init systems
are supported, to the best of our efforts, and I don't see why someone
would refuse a patch. I haven't seen such
also sprach Stephan Seitz [2014-07-04 15:09
+0200]:
> But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
> software to replace systemd?
Because there are better ways to implement it, including more
granular approaches and less of a desktop focus. And you could be
a better upstream
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> I'll remind you that this thread started with systemd breaking my
> system, and a systemd maintainer summarily closing my bug report. Not
> once, but twice.
Because the bug was already fixed in a newer version of systemd. While
we're reminding people of things.
>
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
> While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban, I would
> like to ask you to consider taking a step back from this thread, and
> evaluating whether such messages are actually contributing to bringing these
> discussions to a conclusion.
>
Thanks for the
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I [...] will try to avoid breaking stuff
I expect no less from a Debian Developer.
> but it's also a use case we don't hit, so breakage there is less likely
> to be seen by us. We'll do our best to fix it when reported, of course.
That is good to hear. It would be eve
> I have yet to find mr Preining funny in any of his mails sent to any of
> the lists I read. Humour, except when accompanied with explicit tags of
> HERE BE HUMOUR does not work very well on large lists.
Well, because I don't write "WARNING HUMOUR COMING" and then some
people don't get it b
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
> > While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban,
>
> Having had the pleasure to meet Norbert in person, I have no doubt that he
> was joking when appealing to the CoC.
I have yet to find mr Preining funny in any of his mails sent to any of
the lists
> While I have no interest in joining Norbert in calling for your ban,
Having had the pleasure to meet Norbert in person, I have no doubt that he
was joking when appealing to the CoC. (I did find his comment funny --
actually, I find the CoC ifself pretty funny --, but I realise that this
is an i
Matthias,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:02:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Norbert Preining:
> > > Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
> > Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
> > due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
> *what* Se
* The Wanderer , 2014-07-04, 12:00:
Zurg (Jessie+1),
Has that name actually been formalized in any way?
No. But no worries, if RT chooses a different name, we'll have a GR to
override them. :-P
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Jul 04, The Wanderer wrote:
> This part is precisely what I'm objecting to. I don't consider being
> expected to reboot *in order to maintain existing functionality* after
> an upgrade to be reasonable.
Tough luck for you then, I fear that this is a perception issue.
> At the very least, in t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 11:28 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Adam Borowski:
>> There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
>> kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
>> forced reboots on
On Friday, July 04, 2014 17:28:05 Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Adam Borowski:
> > There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
> > kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
> > forced reboots on a repeated basis, I don't like where
Hi,
Adam Borowski:
> There was enough trouble when udev needed an in-lockstep upgrade with the
> kernel a few releases back. If systemd components are going to need such
> forced reboots on a repeated basis, I don't like where this is going.
>
systemd and its components can re-exec themselves, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 10:42 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>
>> So, let me get this straight:
>>
>> You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after
>> an upgrade where any reasona
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014, at 16:42, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > So, let me get this straight:
> >
> > You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after an
> > upgrade where any reasonable person would expect to reboot
>
> Thi
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> So, let me get this straight:
>
> You're saying that if, having decided to postpone rebooting after an
> upgrade where any reasonable person would expect to reboot
This is Debian, not Windows or Red Hat, forced reboots are not accept
Steve McIntyre wrote:
>with this constant bickering and sniping. If you must do it, start the
>GR and see how that goes. I even offer to second it just to help get
Can you help formulate? I do not feel my English skills are
up to that.
Also, what options do we need?
1) systemd is the only init
Hi,
Norbert Preining:
> > Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
> Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
> due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
*what* Seriously?!?
One of us seems to harbor a severe misconception or two about what kin
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>Thorsten Glaser:
>> systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
>> games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
>> projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
>Yeah. It "has a chance".
Yes. (I was more or less referring to th
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>You know, backdoors are not only code vulnerabilities.
>
>systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
>games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
>projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
Thorsten, you're too late. The ar
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Then shut up and help with the work required to get there,
Please stop this inpoliteness, or I request a ban on all mailing lists
due to permanent breaking of Code of Conduct.
(Long live the CoC - I am *so* happy to have it!! - hope someone
got
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:40:59PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
_instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what systemd
offers.
But if they don’t want the systemd features why should they write
softwa
Hi Thorsten,
while I tend to basically acknowledge your points here, there is still one
thing you obviously did not get until now, if I followed along correctly.
>For example, systemd has support for its own (S)NTP client, but also
>supports xntpd (rudely leaving OpenNTPD out already). The commi
Dominik George dixit:
>systemd, in its nature as an init system, starts what you tell it to
>start. There is nothing that can prevent it from starting openntpd if
>you want that. If you through a service file at it, or even an LSB
>init script, then systemd has no choice but to start it.
No, this
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
>> _instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what
>> systemd offers.
>
>Abstracting away from your somewhat offensive choice of language, that's
>a good point. As far as I'm aw
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
> systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
> games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
> projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
>
Yeah. It "has a chance".
It also "has a chance" to give people a big chunk of spare time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/04/2014 04:52 AM, Philip Hands wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> ... particularly because I use rather fewer things than many other
>> people, and don't use most fancy GUI elements. (For example, I
>> don't have a graphical "power button" a
> The problem is that some people bitch endlessly abut how evil systemd is
> _instead_of_ producing software (not just patches) to replace what
> systemd offers.
Abstracting away from your somewhat offensive choice of language, that's
a good point. As far as I'm aware, the only major distribution
OdyX wrote:
>all means, go for it. That said, as far as I remember, the latest GR
>proposal [4] on this subject failed to gather the mandatory K seconds
>though. For me, this indicates that not even K=5 DDs were interested in
I was not even aware of that proposal. This may also indicate lack
of,
In other news for Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:59:25PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser has
been seen typing:
> No, there just has not been any challenge that met the form and
> other requirements… and I am at a bit of loss at what to do here.
> Besides, it’s not that the TC made a decision. Rather, the TC wa
That will be my last contribution to this pointless discussion.
Le jeudi, 3 juillet 2014, 16.59:25 Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> > or without systemd btw). Given that the technical committee has made
> > a decision which stayed unchallenged (so far), I've now come to
> > think that
> No, there just
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014, at 16:59, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Besides, it’s not that the TC made a decision. Rather, the TC was
> split, and the chairman threw in his weight. This is absolutely not
> what I’d call a project(!) decision.
No! The TC has made the decision with full adherence to Debian
Con
The Wanderer writes:
> ... particularly because I use rather fewer things than
> many other people, and don't use most fancy GUI elements. (For example,
> I don't have a graphical "power button" at all; I shut down by exiting
> my window manager, logging out of the console where I had originally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/03/2014 11:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
>> testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
>
>> I generally dist-upgrade my primary co
Hi,
The Wanderer:
> I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
> testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
>
We're talking about an upgrade from one release to the other here,
with many intrusive changes (not just systemd).
If you do that upgrade not in
The Wanderer writes:
> I, for one, would be highly displeased if a routine dist-upgrade to
> testing required me to reboot to avoid having things break.
> I generally dist-upgrade my primary computer to testing about once a
> week, give or take, but I don't reboot it more often than once a month
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/03/2014 01:40 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thorsten Glaser:
>>> Can we get over this now and start making Jessie the most awesome
>>> stable release we've ever prepared together?
>>
>> To do that, it MUST work without systemd, if a
On 03/07/14 22:50, David Weinehall wrote:
> Why would the NSA take even the slightest risk of discovery
> when they could put a backdoor in a driver for a piece of hardware that
> has full access to your system?
Or on the firmware of your HDD/SDD:
http://s3.eurecom.fr/~zaddach/docs/Recon14_HDD.pd
Hi,
Matthias Urlichs writes:
>> Please respect our decision to stay away from systemd and still be
>> Debian users. If possible, please, don't resist changes that make our
>> lives easier.
>>
> *Sigh*.
>
> The problem is not that anybody resists such changes.
I disagree. People *do* in fact res
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
> If the NSA are going to hide back-doors in open source projects (a rather
> dubious idea to start with, given how difficult it is and how much social
> blowback there would be when such a thing was inevitably discovered), they
>
Hi,
Alexander Pushkin:
> It's core developers
*Its.
I think we can do without (quite unfounded, IMHO) insinuations that
systemd is somehow infected with an NSA-sponsored backdoor or two,
thank you very much.
> Please respect our decision to stay away from systemd and still be Debian
> users. I
Alexander Pushkin writes:
> For some of us there will never be an awesome Debian release that at
> it's core contains systemd. It's core developers, Lennart Poettering and
> Kay Sievers, work for a company that has multi-billion dollar contracts
> with NSA. It is your choice to assume good faith
Didier, Hello.
> The proper solution is to stop trying to hide ourselves from to the fact
> that some sort of systemd interfaces have been made unavoidable in
> modern desktop environments (fact which is rightfully reflected in our
> dependencies tree).
> Can we get over this now and start ma
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
> A lot of Debian systems even run without dbus!
>
Yeah. So? systemd doesn't force you to run a dbus daemon.
> No, there just has not been any challenge that met the form and
> other requirements… and I am at a bit of loss at what to do here.
>
You get to do the same thing
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> The proper solution is to stop trying to hide ourselves from to the fact
> that some sort of systemd interfaces have been made unavoidable in
> modern desktop environments (fact which is rightfully reflected in our
Eh… you know… these are not a
57 matches
Mail list logo
