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
Folks,
Le jeudi, 3 juillet 2014, 14.20:24 Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
> Isn't the proper solution to add blacklisting support to dpkg, then?
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 deskto
58 matches
Mail list logo
