Re: Call for Jessie Release Goals

Am 18.09.2013 15:38, schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs: > On 18 September 2013 03:42, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >>> Release goals are areas of functionality which developers would like to see >>> as an aim for the next release. They will not hol

Re: Call for Jessie Release Goals

On 18 September 2013 03:42, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >> Release goals are areas of functionality which developers would like to see >> as an aim for the next release. They will not hold up the release, but >> allow the bugs opened for t

Re: Call for Jessie Release Goals

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Release goals are areas of functionality which developers would like to see > as an aim for the next release. They will not hold up the release, but > allow the bugs opened for that goal to be of severity 'important'. I am not sure if t

Re: blhc and hardening flags (was: Re: jessie release goals)

> That reminds me. Is there a way to get blhc to tell me *which* line in a > build log makes it think that compiler flags are hidden? I agree that would be really useful > https://buildd.debian.org/~brlink/packages/r/remctl.html is reporting that > the compiler flags are hidden. So far as I kno

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-19 09:17:31 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > Le 16/05/2013 08:43, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : > > On 2013-05-15 20:27:09 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > >> No. Your server comes unconfigured, you do configure it while the other > >> is still working, and then you stop the serv

Re: jessie release goals

Le 16/05/2013 08:43, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : > On 2013-05-15 20:27:09 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> No. Your server comes unconfigured, you do configure it while the other >> is still working, and then you stop the service on the first, finish >> syncing the mailboxes, switch the MX rec

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:42:30 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote: >> We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway. > >why do you think so? Because I think that a decision of this magnitude should not be taken by a single developer, not even by M'

Re: jessie release goals

On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:37:59 +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Stephen Kitt [2013-05-13 19:26 +0200]: > > Yes, but that's not the problem. Take the premise that the target > > directory structure is as described above, so most library development > > packages ship as many headers as possible in /usr/incl

Re: jessie release goals

On Sb, 18 mai 13, 10:33:54, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2013-05-18 14:55:46 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > http://wiki.debian.org/umask > > It says: > > An umask of 022 gives write permission to the other group members. > > Is it true? Probably a typo, fixed. Kind regards, Andrei -- h

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-18 14:55:46 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > http://wiki.debian.org/umask It says: An umask of 022 gives write permission to the other group members. Is it true? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:

Re: jessie release goals

On 16-05-13 21:27, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Wouter Verhelst's message of 2013-05-14 03:22:14 -0700: >> On 13-05-13 05:59, Mark Symonds wrote: >>> Can we keep the distribution simple enough for nearly anyone to understand? >>> >> >> No. >> >> The goal of Debian is not to be "simple". Wh

Re: jessie release goals

On Sb, 18 mai 13, 14:55:46, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:29:42PM -0600, Bob Proulx a écrit : > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals > > > > for jessie. > > > > > > How about settin

Re: jessie release goals

Le Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:29:42PM -0600, Bob Proulx a écrit : > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals > > > for jessie. > > > > How about setting default umask for users (uid >= 1000) to 002? > > +1. It wou

Re: jessie release goals

Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals > > for jessie. > > How about setting default umask for users (uid >= 1000) to 002? +1. It would be a useful default. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh. I forgot about that (partly because of workarounds), but due to the SIGINT problem, I think that *currently*, among these 3 shells, bash is the most suitable one, and mksh is a bit be

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Hi Marc, On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote: > We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway. why do you think so? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:31:02 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make udev >depend on either upstart or systemd. >I would rather not be the one who will choose which one of them, so >I hope that we will get to a consensus abou

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Andreas Beckmann debian.org> writes: > > > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals > > for jessie. Here are some points that come into my mind right now (and > > * Resolve that /bin/sh issue (see the open RC

blhc and hardening flags (was: Re: jessie release goals)

Moritz Mühlenhoff writes: > Agreed. I made a concentrated effort for Wheezy by submitting lots of > patches for crucial packages and the general adoption among maintainers > is increasing. Also, Simon Ruderich's blhc tool has been very useful and > hardening checks are now also part of lintian.

Re: jessie release goals

Christoph Biedl schrieb: > Another thing: Hardening already has been a release goal but there > still are packages around without. Agreed. I made a concentrated effort for Wheezy by submitting lots of patches for crucial packages and the general adoption among maintainers is increasing. Also, Sim

Re: jessie release goals

Excerpts from Wouter Verhelst's message of 2013-05-14 03:22:14 -0700: > On 13-05-13 05:59, Mark Symonds wrote: > > Can we keep the distribution simple enough for nearly anyone to understand? > > > > No. > > The goal of Debian is not to be "simple". While we should document > things as much as

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-15 20:27:09 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > No. Your server comes unconfigured, you do configure it while the other > is still working, and then you stop the service on the first, finish > syncing the mailboxes, switch the MX record, and then you can go to > rest. This is not pos

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:39:54PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above, > I???m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course > I???d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a > thing not

Re: jessie release goals

Thomas Goirand writes: > Now please, do the same reasoning with some other services, > like Apache, pure-ftpd, or bind, and explain to me why you would > like to have these installed, but not working. As a developer I have often found use for having Apache installed, just so I can start it as a

Re: jessie release goals

On 13-05-13 06:16, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > >> I don't know about you, but I find it quite reassuring to be able to >> confirm that the first half of an install is going pretty well when I >> get to see the "useless" dummy page from Apache. I'd ima

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 15-05-13 17:39, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above, > I’m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course > I’d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a > thing not driven by me; I see. In t

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Hi Thorsten On 11-05-13 20:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Steve Langasek debian.org> writes: > >> This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal, >> the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh >> for *everyone*. > > Sure. We just disagree wh

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]: > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was > > > to be able to have more than *2* packa

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Being able to choose between two entirely different desktop > > environments, with different user experiences, is a good thing. > > Being able to choose between two /

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]: > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was > > > to be able to have more than *2* packa

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 05:29:45PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was > > to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh. > > > > Currently, due to the totaly scre

Re: jessie release goals

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:43:02PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote... > > > 2) No more packages that bypass the package management system and secure > > apt: > > a) There are still several (typically non-free) packages which download > > stuff from the web, install o

Re: jessie release goals

On Lu, 06 mai 13, 14:49:57, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Hi, > > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals > for jessie. How about setting default umask for users (uid >= 1000) to 002? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussio

Re: jessie release goals

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:17:06PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2013-05-07 23:53:07 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Now please, do the same reasoning with some other services, > > like Apache, pure-ftpd, or bind, and explain to me why you would > > like to have these installed, but not worki

Re: jessie release goals

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 05:06:26PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 12.05.2013 16:18, schrieb Daniel Schepler: > > Maybe we could have a release goal of dropping as many lib32* and lib64* > > packages as possible in favor of multi-arch. (And also as many package > > dependencies on libc6-[i386|am

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:33:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Though zsh has an option to emulate sh, it may still not be completely > compatible. Upstream fixes incompatibilities when it is easy. But some > incompatibilities may remain. If sh needs special multibyte (UTF-8) > support for some

Re: jessie release goals

Another thing: Hardening already has been a release goal but there still are packages around without. After having seen the proctetion catching a programming bug I think more importance should be put on that, either by considering all packages rc-buggy that should be built with hardening wrappers

Re: jessie release goals

Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote... > 2) No more packages that bypass the package management system and secure > apt: > a) There are still several (typically non-free) packages which download > stuff from the web, install or at least un-tar it somwhere without > checking any integrity information th

Re: jessie release goals

Le 15/05/2013 16:40, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : > Here this is more than a mail server being down. It is a domain > without a MX; doesn't this mean a direct reject? Actually removing > the MX pointer wouldn't be OK, as the client may look at the A record > instead, which can't be removed without te

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Am 15.05.2013 02:12, schrieb Michael Biebl: > Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >>> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much >>> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I have still hard time to consider that you absolutely did not mention > something related to a bootloader. I believe Phil Hands explained better than I would what I tried to explain. On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Like in the previo

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 05/14/2013 06:07 PM, Philip Hands wrote: > He missed the fact that you were contrasting one non-crashing init, that > is capable of restarting dead services, with another non-crashing > init setup that is not able to do so (without help). Oh, indeed I missed that point! Thanks Phil. Thomas -

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Jonathan Dowland debian.org> writes: > I think you are totally out of order, here. You could equally be criticised > of having your judgement clouded by your involvement with MirOS. That would I admit being biased for that very reason. And that’s also the reason I try to push for freedom of choi

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh. [...] > I have no idea whether yash or zsh can be made suitable, but I think > both could, if the maintainers and possibly upstream are interested. Though zsh has an option to emulate

Re: jessie release goals

Russ Allbery debian.org> writes: > The cvs package went down the debconf path, and it never failed to annoy > me. When I installed the cvs package to get the cvs command-line client > to access remote CVS repositories, it asked me where I wanted to create a Or even automatically created one, ye

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-15 01:00:37 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/13/2013 07:08 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2013-05-07 23:54:36 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> On 05/07/2013 04:00 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >>> This can be fine for some daemons/servers. For instance, for a web > >>> server, dis

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Oh, sorry, I forgot, you work for Canonical (which totally explains some > of your writings in the other eMail too, which I’m not going to comment > on). Of course, for *buntu people it’s not about choice. I think you are totally o

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 23:26 +, brian m. carlson a écrit : > For better or for worse, sysvinit provides a lot of modularity. systemd > provides none of that modularity Maybe you should read a bit about systemd before saying such nonsense. The real-world systemd (not the imaginary software yo

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes: > > > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as > > Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was ???suddenly??? in > Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, b

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

]] "brian m. carlson" > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > > >Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > > >>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >>>This is utter bull

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

]] "brian m. carlson" > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much > > >> mo

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much > >> more reliable as a whole than any ot

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > >Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > >>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >>>This is utter bullshit and you should already know i

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

> And, when it comes to processing, binary data is actually *easier* to > process. Everyone who has ever written a text parser themselves will > agree. I guess everyone who has used grep, tr, sed and so on will disagree? -- Salvo Tomaselli http://web.student.chalmers.se/~saltom/ -- To UNSUBSC

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much >> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to >> see a use case where it is not bet

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much >> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to >> see a use case where it is not bet

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much > more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to > see a use case where it is not better. It is not better if you don't want proprietary

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

❦ 14 mai 2013 11:54 CEST, Thomas Goirand  : >> Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your >> other disk bootable. > > This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message > compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you > have apache, it's easi

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

* Sune Vuorela [130512 12:43]: > It is too much work for far too little gain. What *is* the gain? > What is the gain of copyright files? One big gain of a copyright file is the act of doing it. For software to be distributable every copyright owner has to have given his permission. To know that

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes: > > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as > Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? Because /bin/sh is special under Debian policy, as an essential interpre

Re: jessie release goals

Joey Hess writes: > Paul Wise wrote: >> Probably the rsync package should just ask you via debconf if you want >> to serve any directories and what their names and paths should be. >> Since most folks who have rsync installed don't need rsyncd, the >> default would be to not setup anything. > No

Re: jessie release goals

Philip Hands wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > I agree for these services (though Apache is useless after just > > being installed, as one just has a dummy web page). > > I don't know about you, but I find it quite reassuring to be able to > confirm that the first half of an install is going pr

Re: jessie release goals

On 05/13/2013 07:08 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2013-05-07 23:54:36 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 05/07/2013 04:00 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> This can be fine for some daemons/servers. For instance, for a web >>> server, displaying a default web page is harmless. But what about a >>> m

Re: jessie release goals

+++ Stephen Kitt [2013-05-13 19:26 +0200]: > Yes, but that's not the problem. Take the premise that the target directory > structure is as described above, so most library development packages ship as > many headers as possible in /usr/include. For now we'll assume all > mingw-w64-...-dev headers

Re: jessie release goals

Paul Wise wrote: > Probably the rsync package should just ask you via debconf if you want > to serve any directories and what their names and paths should be. > Since most folks who have rsync installed don't need rsyncd, the > default would be to not setup anything. No, it should not. 60 packages

Re: jessie release goals

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:26:15PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:39:28 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow > wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:57:58AM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > > The big issue which crops up then isn't so much the directory structure's > > > impact on the bu

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:59 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes: > > > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as > > Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in > Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there n

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > ... > forcing the rest of the world to conform to our worldview. One > desktop environment, and an awful one at that, dictating the > init system we use is a complete farce. Debian is a lot bigger > than GNOME, and if we have to, I

Re: jessie release goals

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I suggest that you file a bug against php5 with suggested changes and we can > discuss the pros and cons of each for jessie. And I must add that I consider very rude to push your (sometimes extreme, sometimes very usefull) ideas how should

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:52:25PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Being able to write tools to extract the license of any given package. Well, extract what the maintainer thought the license was when they wrote debian/copyright. What correlation that has with reality is an open question. -- To

Re: jessie release goals

Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2013-05-14 12:22:14) > On 13-05-13 05:59, Mark Symonds wrote: > > Can we keep the distribution simple enough for nearly anyone to > > understand? > > No. > > The goal of Debian is not to be "simple". While we should document > things as much as possible so that the inte

Re: jessie release goals

On 13-05-13 05:59, Mark Symonds wrote: > Can we keep the distribution simple enough for nearly anyone to understand? No. The goal of Debian is not to be "simple". While we should document things as much as possible so that the interested can learn how things work, in no case should we ever avoi

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Josselin Mouette writes: > Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : >> On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> > Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if >> > something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes >> >

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 05/14/2013 04:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your > other disk bootable. This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you have apache, it's easier to r

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes: > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there never was an evaluation of shells. I still believe the codebase of mks

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if > > something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes > > and fails to reload properly beca

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

On 2013-05-13, Robert Collins wrote: > The use cases are not at all fringe: every company I have worked at since > open source became the dominant source of libraries has had some set of > rules and policies around which licenses to use when, and good data about > that makes decision making easier

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit : >> With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least >> [citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv, >> upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on f

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Robert Collin wrote: > Wearing my HP hat - ... This is a large component of why Fossology > was born - http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/About_Us. While you are wearing a HP/Fossology hat, how about reintroducing fossology to Debian? I guess discus

Re: jessie release goals

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > But there isn't a dependency (and currently all the config needs > to be done manually, as described in the sensord(8) man page). > So, this won't work. That sounds like a suboptimal package, -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWis

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

Le Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:31:00AM +1200, Robert Collins a écrit : > Sadly > On 13 May 2013 00:00, "Sune Vuorela" wrote: > > > How many hours of developer time is it worth to spend to accomplish > > these, in my opinion, real fringe use cases ? > > Let me start out by saing that I'm not at all

Re: parsable copyright format 1.0 (jessie release goals)

Sadly On 13 May 2013 00:00, "Sune Vuorela" wrote: > How many hours of developer time is it worth to spend to accomplish > these, in my opinion, real fringe use cases ? > Let me start out by saing that I'm not at all a fan of the machine readable copyright files - it seems to me there has to b

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

2013/5/14 Игорь Пашев : > 2013/5/13 Philipp Kern : >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: >>> There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init >>> system, other than laziness. >> >> Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start >> up /

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

2013/5/13 Philipp Kern : > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: >> There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init >> system, other than laziness. > > Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start > up / shut down services. The separati

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init > system, other than laziness. Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start up / shut down services. The separation then gets quite blurry with who

Re: jessie release goals

On 13/05/13 18:26, Stephen Kitt wrote: > Yes, but that's not the problem. Take the premise that the target > directory structure is as described above, so most library > development packages ship as many headers as possible in > /usr/include. For now we'll assume all mingw-w64-...-dev headers > are

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On May 13, Philip Hands wrote: > No matter what the technical merits, the inevitable flame war regarding > copyright assignment seems very likely to render upstart a non-starter > as an essential element of Debian. I think that this is a reasonable element to consider in our decision process. -

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On May 13, "gustavo panizzo " wrote: > On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote: > >Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to > >make udev depend on either upstart or systemd. > do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever > explaining the rationale behind thi

Re: jessie release goals

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:39:28 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:57:58AM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > The big issue which crops up then isn't so much the directory structure's > > impact on the build process, but rather its impact on the packaging > > process. If the

Re: jessie release goals

Le lundi 13 mai 2013 15:37:28, Philip Hands a écrit : > > If you must see the man page from a particular package: > > dget apache2.2-common > mkdir -p ./tmp/apache2.2-common > dpkg -X apache2.2-common_2.2.22-13_amd64.deb ./tmp/apache2.2-common JTYI, you could also use debman -p apache2.2-c

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-13 21:42:20 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Yes, but similarly, there's no way to do this automatically. > > apt-get autoremove is automatic, or if you want that earlier you could > remove sensord using aptitude which will automatica

Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:05:59AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn???t help you if > something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes > and fails to reload properly because the scripts don???t get the ordering > right,

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-13 16:26:58 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > One could imagine the same thing but with testing directories... > Something like in the /etc/default/ file: > > test -f some_dir || ENABLED=0 > > But this method needs an "ENABLED" variable! Actually, that would be more like ENABLED=0 test

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-13 14:37:28 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > There's also a problem that the man pages are in the package: > > > > $ dpkg -L apache2.2-common | grep /man/ > > /usr/share/man/man8 > > /usr/share/man/man8/apache2.8.gz > > /usr/share/man/man8/a2ensite.8.gz > > /usr/

Re: jessie release goals

On 2013-05-13 08:48:33 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 05/13/2013 08:33 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >]] Vincent Lefevre > > > >>On 2013-05-13 13:32:51 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >>>No, it does not, since the default configuration («Local only») > >>>sets > >> > >>This is not the default

Re: jessie release goals

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Yes, but similarly, there's no way to do this automatically. apt-get autoremove is automatic, or if you want that earlier you could remove sensord using aptitude which will automatically remove unused dependencies. > There's also a proble

Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)

On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote: Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make udev depend on either upstart or systemd. do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever explaining the rationale behind this? i didn't found anything on FOSDEM website

Re: jessie release goals

Vincent Lefevre writes: > On 2013-05-13 12:02:31 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre writes: >> > My only use of Apache on some machine is because of sensord. But >> > it may happen that in a few months, I would no longer need sensord >> > and may remove the package. In this case, it w

Re: Merging / and /usr (was: jessie release goals)

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:03:43PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > If you make /usr a symlink to / then there will be to distinct paths > > to each file and that will confuse dpkg. > > > > The first problem that comes to mind is

  1   2   3   4   >