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
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
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 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
> 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 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
* 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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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, which live
>> on /usr.
> Yeah, we all so his marvelous example
On 11/28/2012 02:38 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> There is nothing in systemd's or udev's architecture that requires
> having /usr mounted early.
That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr.
> However, it's the opinion of the systemd
> primary upstream authors that having /us
]] Steve Langasek
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 03:42:19PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > The point is, systemd and udev have recently been patched by upstream so
> > > that things are going *even more* on the direction of having stuff
> > > stored in /usr.
>
> > Which is still not re
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 03:42:19PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > The point is, systemd and udev have recently been patched by upstream so
> > that things are going *even more* on the direction of having stuff
> > stored in /usr.
> Which is still not really a problem when tons of othe
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:06:02PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > > some of us prefer a separated /usr partition.
> > "I want to have a separate /usr, because I can"
> > enabling a separate /usr means extra work.
> using a separate /usr was controversial
> partitioned their systems with a separ
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 I still love these
machines and I am supporting the efforts to get Debian back onto
m6
On 11/26/2012 01:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Debian dropped support for m68k and Alpha and
> deprived users of their freedom to run Debian on these platforms with
> the latest supported software. But these architectures weren't dropped
> because they wanted to take away people's freed
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:
> >
> > So please just keep in mind that this is annoying
> > some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just
> > live with the fact you aren't alone in thi
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> So please just keep in mind that this is annoying
> some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just
> live with the fact you aren't alone in this world, and
> that some of us prefer a separated /usr partition.
Based on which tec
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/25/2012 02:19 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I really wish people would stop having this debate.
It is completely pointless for us to argue here over whether or not the
fork will be successful. The outcome of that argument is completely
irrelevant to
On 11/25/2012 10:42 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Besides, can you elaborate what is so important in having /usr
> separate? I see that it made sense back on the old Unix workstations
> where you could split partitions across different disks, but I don't
> see the point nowadays where a ch
On 11/25/2012 02:19 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I really wish people would stop having this debate.
>
> It is completely pointless for us to argue here over whether or not the
> fork will be successful. The outcome of that argument is completely
> irrelevant to the world: even if we all decide that
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 opposite thing that is happening? "Such low-level
> stuff" are being merged (with systemd
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 opposite thing that is happening? "Such low-level
stuff" are being merged (with systemd+udev merge), they were
separated projects before.
So, I'd rather ask you
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:16:27PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Yes, lots of
> >> udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact. Yes, lots of
> >> things are annoying in the merge for someone who wishes to use
> >> udev alone, and not systemd. That is a fact as well.
> >
> > There is ton
Hi,
First, I'm registered to the list. So please *do not* Cc: me.
On 11/25/2012 03:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> They're constantly claiming, for example, th
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:35:22AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Sorry, but I wouldn't touch code with a ten-feet pole who from someone
> is so naive claiming that he knows more about writing an open source
> BIOS than the people at Coreboot who have been doing that since
> 1999. I star
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
> > a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
> I believe you've been reading too much L. Po
On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
> a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
I believe you've been reading too much L. Poettring. Yes, lots of
udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact.
Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 à 18:25 +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
> Lennart already.
OTOH we also get quite enough of FUD from people who don’t know what
systemd is but don’t want us to use it.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouett
Adrian wrote:
>
>If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
>and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
>without systemd or not.
Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
Lennart already.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
>> I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
>> help getting back some of the modularity in Linux that was there, once
>> upon a time, and which contributed to making Linu
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 systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
> > without s
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 systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
> without systemd or not.
I would highly prefer a system where I can take small b
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
> > systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't about
>
> I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
> help
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:09:51AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 11:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > The full thread is here:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
> This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
> systemd / ups
Thomas Goirand writes:
> This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again
> the systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't
> about the init system, and it wasn't my intention to restart this
> debate.
> However, how should Debian see this udev fork?
On 11/14/2012 11:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is an interesting read:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
>
> The full thread is here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262
>
> As Gentoo guys and some major kernel people are protesti
75 matches
Mail list logo
