Dear colleagues,
I did a statistical analysis of the outcome of the GR “Init systems and systemd”:
https://github.com/rlaboiss/debian-gr-systemd-2019
The abstract of this study is below.
All the best,
Rafael Laboissière
Hi,
The results of the General Resolution about init systems and systemd is:
Option 2 "B: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
D
ppened. Hypervisors & failover, and replicated
storage are also high on my list).
I suggest you take Devuan related questions to the devuan mailing list
dng¹.
Topic change is definitely appropriate, my apologies. Comparisons of
distributions, IMHO is within bounds.
One may argue whether D
of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but
> it's never really happened. Hypervisors & failover, and replicated
> storage are also high on my list).
I suggest you take Devuan related questions to the devuan mailing list
dng¹.
One may argue whether Debian's systemd d
Hi,
Ralf Jung:
> In fact I am surprised that what we seem to end up with is an
> alternative implementation of some internal systemd APIs (called
> systemd-shim), which *will* break in backwards-incompatible ways -
> instead of a reimplementation of the API that devs (of policykit
Hi,
> The bottom line is I think it's fair to say you *are* locked into
> systemd journald in a way you weren't locked into syslog. Claims that
> you can just write another one exporting the same API don't ring true,
> because I suspect the API will be about as stable
I had missed the "Save to Drafts" button,
apparently.
The post wasn't going to continue in the same direction. Regardless, I
stand by my assertion you _will_ be running journald if you use systemd.
And while perhaps other people might make design different decisions, if
I
Russell Stuart writes:
> On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 21:22 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Pretty sure there's no dependency on journald. I think you have to use
>> systemd's syslog passthrough if you're launching systems under systemd
>> as an init system (althou
*way* worse
problems than any percieved lock-in.
> Journald it an excellent starting point for a discussion on lock in.
Nobody prevents you from writing a replacement; it's not hard to figure out
what systemd does to pass the relevant file descriptors along.
Or you could extend rsyslog so that i
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 21:22 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pretty sure there's no dependency on journald. I think you have to use
> systemd's syslog passthrough if you're launching systems under systemd as
> an init system (although I'm not 100% sure about that eve
ogind is essentially a redoing of this entire architecture into something
that's cleaner and handles more of the edge cases properly. And my
understanding is that it really *is* superior -- if you're working in this
space, it solved real problems for you, and was (and is) getting a le
On 01/20/2015 at 08:56 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Really, the vast majority of dependencies on systemd in the archive
> are for things that want to use logind, generally indirected through
> libpam-systemd, and generally stuff that used to use ConsoleKit.
> The single most productiv
s. Touch one
thing and another broke. Everybody hated it. And we kept trying to fix
it, so for example on the hardware side we went from HAL to hotplug to
udev with devfs fitting somewhere in there. Not surprisingly the
maintainers of things like ConsoleKit got the shits and gave up, so we
ent
say the previous udev-based script which loaded the
>>> printer firmware has been replaced by systemd events of some sort
>>> but I didn't really investigate.
>> Doubtful. It's probably just assuming logind instead of ConsoleKit,
>> which is something different
ed the
>> printer firmware has been replaced by systemd events of some sort
>> but I didn't really investigate.
>
> Doubtful. It's probably just assuming logind instead of ConsoleKit,
> which is something different than the systemd unit file support.
The chai
Christian Mueller writes:
> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because
> there were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm
> using XFCE, thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
systemd (the collection of software) is required f
On lun., 2015-01-19 at 09:13 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> The solution here would be either to convince upstreams not to depend on
> policykit, or to provide (restore?) and package a sufficiently
> functional implementation of policykit which does not depend on
> libpam-systemd.
Som
On 01/19/2015 at 07:27 AM, Tomas Tintera wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:00:04 +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
>
>> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd
>> because there were already dependencies to it which I could not
>> i
That's the problem: I don't mind systemd's way of starting and stopping
processes, that part is just fine. I just don't want the remaining bits
with all their implications, one of which is that more and more
programmers will write their code towards systems with syste
Hi.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:00:04 +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because there
> were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm using XFCE,
> thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
I could n
Hi Scott (and Debian at large),
I just tried to update to Jessie and couldn't remove systemd because
there were already dependencies to it which I could not ignore (I'm
using XFCE, thus this is not strictly a Gnome thing):
# apt-get remove --purge --auto-remove systemd
Reading pac
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 07:52:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> You constant rants are getting unbearable for me.
Same here.
My email killfile consists of 6 lines.
3 of them are Svante's email addresses.
(Yes, "don't feed the troll" doesn't work. But still. *sigh*)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Ho
Le Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:55:16PM +0100, Svante Signell a écrit :
> Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
> New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for a
> non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
Svante,
your email i
On November 29, 2014 12:55:16 PM EST, Svante Signell wrote:
>Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
>New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for
>a
>non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
There's been a number
Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :(
New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for a
non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Christian Mueller writes:
> Dear Debian Project,
>
> I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using
> systemd
Then don't.
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
--
To UNSU
On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:23:29 PM Christian Mueller wrote:
> Dear Debian Project,
>
> I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using
> systemd but recent developments made it difficult to remain impartial.
>
> Debian has always been about ch
Dear Debian Project,
I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using
systemd but recent developments made it difficult to remain impartial.
Debian has always been about choice. You (Debian) have maintained
distributions based on BSD, Hurd, whatever kernels, at
say now.
There have been some really amazing moments in this whole systemd
discussion. There have been moments where I've been really proud to be
part of debian and reminded that this is why I love this community; this
is why I'm here. Sadly, there have been other moments too with mor
e tech CTTE decided for systemd (which was the right decision) in
the beginning of the year, many people were already unhappy with this,
but I guess things got less out of control as now, since a) the decision
was technically right, b) Shuttleworth basically killed upstart shortly
afterwards and c)
Hi,
I think that everyone will agree that we are having a big crisis about
the role of the TC in Debian. What saddens me deeply is how some of us
framed this as a "Debian vs the Technical Committee" fight. The
Technical Committee _is_ Debian. If we feel it's malfunctionning, it's
our problem as De
rn to
communicating like an adult. Also add in not top posting, not swearing
on forums intended to be family-friendly, as well as treating others
on the list with respect. That will all stand you in much better stead
for your future.
May you find peace,
Zenaan
On 3/4/14, Arnold Bird wrote:
> So because
So because systemd people won, now after 13 years I have to leave
and find another distro.
This is BS.
The systemd people do this is every single distro they take over.
It is their way or the highway.
I absolutely hate you systemd people.
--- jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
From: Jerry Stuckle
FOUR people made a decision that would once have required
thousands of votes. FOUR votes overrideds the decision
debian took before the tech-ctte dictatorship to standardize
on system V init rather than bsd style init scripts
The tech-ctte was created to arbitrate and decide disputes
between pack
FOUR people made a decision that would once have required
thousands of votes. FOUR votes overrideds the decision
debian took before the tech-ctte dictatorship to standardize
on system V init rather than bsd style init scripts
The tech-ctte was created to arbitrate and decide disputes
between pack
This particular statement was taken out of context:
On Friday, February 21, 2014 20:48:46 Georgy Demidov wrote:
[...]
> Linus Torvalds about Lennart Poettering: “Two-faced lying weasel” would be
> the most polite thing I could say. But it almost certainly will involve a
> lot of cursing.
When Lin
which
surprised even me. The GTK development story and the systemd debate on Debian
revealed much corporate pressure being brought to bear in Linux. [...] Some
really startling facts about Red Hat came to light. For me the biggest was the
fact that the US military is Red Hat's largest cus
re that is needed, be constructive.
The house will be build here. If you can help its construction and
help it be stronger - please help. If you are going to continue
advocating not building here - please don't. That one is settled.
I personally dislike systemd on a few technical and few
tee, which
>> was split 50/50 for and against systemd, the chairman happened to
>> be a systemd fan and abused his position to gain a double
>> vote for forcing systemd down out knecks?
>
>Whatever it is you are trying to say, what difference will it make if
>you keep s
On 16/02/14 09:54, ChaosEsque Team wrote:
> Isn't it great that we have to have this discussion about forking debian
> because within an oligarchic 8 man planning committee, which
> was split 50/50 for and against systemd, the chairman happened to
> be a systemd fan and abuse
On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 19:05 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> On 14/02/14 14:58, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > On 14 February 2014 13:42, ChaosEsque Team wrote:
> >> The systemd fans ban anyone who say fork-that to systemd.
> >
> > Not respecting the communic
On 14/02/14 14:58, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 14 February 2014 13:42, ChaosEsque Team wrote:
>> The systemd fans ban anyone who say fork-that to systemd.
>
> Not respecting the communication culture of the project is a perfectly
> reasonable reason for a ban, regardl
On 14 February 2014 13:42, ChaosEsque Team wrote:
> The systemd fans ban anyone who say f__k-that to systemd.
Not respecting the communication culture of the project is a perfectly
reasonable reason for a ban, regardless of the opinion expressed by
the banned or held by the banners.
> Wh
On 14/02/2014, Axel Wagner wrote:
> ChaosEsque Team writes:
>> Everyone knows that the systemd crap is armtwisting and trys to
>> pull everyone and everything along with it.
>
> I believe (and
> will continue to believe) that the strong supporters of sysvinit within
>
Hi,
ChaosEsque Team writes:
> Everyone knows that the systemd crap is armtwisting and trys to
> pull everyone and everything along with it.
Please provide some numbers on this statement of fact. I believe (and
will continue to believe) that the strong supporters of sysvinit with
Honestly, f__k systemd and f__k lennart, and f__k the fans of them.
Where's linus in all of this?
The systemd fans ban anyone who say f__k-that to systemd.
What can we do?
Can we fork debian? (Why do we have to...)
Why do 4 people get to decide to send thousands and thousands of people into
On 10/02/2014 17:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com
snip
> Not really objective journalism
The byline alone is enough to deduce this. Let's not feed the trolls.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I personally would defer to the Debian press team to decide whether they
> feel we should make a public statement at this time. I think we're still
> in the middle of our process, which I understand that a lot of people
> outside the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
>
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
>> > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>>
>> Well, not only outside the project.
>>
>>
Matthew Vernon wrote at 2014-02-11 09:08 -0600:
> The split in the cttee on this issue makes me wonder whether the
> answer is "none of the proposed systems is Correct", so we should not
> tie ourselves too tightly to any particular answer just yet.
I have had exactly the same thought.
signature
Joey Hess writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
> > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>
> Well, not only outside the project.
>
> The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a c
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
>> that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>
> Well, not only outside the project.
>
> The tech ctte has always operated in
, or if it somehow distracted the ctte from coming to a
resolution.
OTOH, if the ctte is still stuck in a procedural morass after the full
3-4 weeks it takes to pass a GR, it could be a lifeline that
lets it decide on a better decision making procedure. Even if that ends
up being "we decide by co
Joey Hess writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
>> that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
> Well, not only outside the project.
> The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a consensu
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
> that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
Well, not only outside the project.
The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a consensus
and then voting to satisf
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:26:39PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Is there any page that anybody is maintaining with live updates on the
> key points people need to know (without digging through the threads)?
Good question. Out of curiosity more than anything else, I played with
digging numbers.
On 10/02/14 17:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
Ah, Sam Barghese... Wh
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/
>> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd
>
>> Is there any page that anybody is maintaining with live updates on the
>> key points people need to know (without digging through the threads)?
>
> The TC is not in a position to
On Mon, February 10, 2014 18:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
Even if obj
Daniel Pocock writes:
> However, when I look for an up to date summary of the situation that is
> one of the top things revealed in Google
> Other high ranking pages on the topic don't seem to be up to date:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/
> https://wiki.debi
On 10/02/14 18:45, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2014-02-10, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>>
>> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
>> lot seriously."
>>
>> Not really o
On 2014-02-10, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63079-debian-init-system-vote-has-become-a-farce
>
> finishes off with the line "And users are still expected to take this
> lot seriously."
>
> Not really objective journalism
It is unfortunately embarras
ation that is
one of the top things revealed in Google
Other high ranking pages on the topic don't seem to be up to date:
https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/
https://wiki.debian.org/systemd
Is there any page that anybody is maintaining with live updates on the
key points people need t
64 matches
Mail list logo
