On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 07:23 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Jon Masters
>> wrote:
>
>> > I have an MTA installed because I expect to get emailed logs, and root@
>> > does go somewhere. Now, there are a
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 07:23 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > I have an MTA installed because I expect to get emailed logs, and root@
> > does go somewhere. Now, there are a couple of things I should admit:
> >
> > 1). I did replace the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway
wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 03:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>>
>>> The service command has a syntax like this:
>>>
>>> service servicename action
>>>
>>> where as systemctl has
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 17:54 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>> >
>> > > that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are em
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:08:02AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > If non-sysadmins will hardly notice the new init system, shouldn't the
> > sysadmins, who will notice, be the primary consideration?
>
> Non-sysadmins will notice that their system boots faster, which is a gr
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 21:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think that's precisely the concern. In the event that F14 goes back
> > to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
> > received much testing. If we want to claim that it's safe to switch
> > back to ups
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:29 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > > The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
> > > > keeping it around during pre-release
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:08:13AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > The "compelling use case" is that it doesn't make sense to maintain 2
> > pieces
> > of core infrastructure code doing the same thing, especially when one's
> > functionality is a subset of the other's. (Now the problem is that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:25:17AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The "compelling use case" is that it doesn't make sense to maintain 2 pieces
> of core infrastructure code doing the same thing, especially when one's
> functionality is a subset of the other's. (Now the problem is that it still
Ma
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 07:06:06PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I don't think this is an important change, in the sense that I've noted
> others as important. But, like changing "isolate" to "switch-to", it
> improves the user experience. With terms like "isolate" and "maintenance",
> systemd com
On 08/24/2010 01:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
>> The service command has a syntax like this:
>>
>> service servicename action
>>
>> where as systemctl has a syntax like this:
>>
>> systemctl action servicename.service
>>
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > When there's a compelling use case for NetworkManager on machines that
> > don't move around?
>
> The "compelling use case" is that it doesn't make sense to maintain 2 pieces
> of core infrastructure code doing the same thing, es
On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 07:32:42 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 08:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making everyone
> >> who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth, etc. triage
> >> them isn't e
Matthew Miller wrote:
> When there's a compelling use case for NetworkManager on machines that
> don't move around?
The "compelling use case" is that it doesn't make sense to maintain 2 pieces
of core infrastructure code doing the same thing, especially when one's
functionality is a subset of th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2010 03:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 24.08.10 09:44, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> I would add security things.
>>
>> Starting a service sends audit messages from the proper loginuid.
>> I am sure Steve Grub has
2010/8/24 Lennart Poettering :
> On Tue, 24.08.10 12:56, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:10 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> >
>> > > People like you and me would opt-in. (well I would on some hosts)
>> >
Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/30/10 9:34 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>> I'd like to get some wider testing on it than what I subjected it to.
>> Constructive criticism welcome.
>>
>
> Did you ever get testing on this?
Nothing past my own usage. I hi
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:01:55AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Right. In fact, I think we're supporting way too many deprecated
> alternatives for way too long, e.g. when will the old legacy "network"
> service which has been deprecated for ages finally be gone?
When there's a compelling use ca
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 02:44 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Isn't "network" needed for people who don't run NetworkManager?
>
> The idea is that everybody should run NM. :-)
When it works reliably in all situations. I get a choice. Usually, I
will have NetworkManager installed
Lennart Poettering píše v St 25. 08. 2010 v 02:52 +0200:
> On Tue, 24.08.10 20:14, Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > > Lennart Poettering (m
On Tue, 24.08.10 20:14, Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > > > > - init shall support a m
2010/8/24 Kevin Kofler
> Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > disagree, have you seen your notifications after leaving your computer
> > alone for several hours with IM client connected (with whatever status)?
> >
> > You'll get tons of "User XY has changed status to: blah blah"
>
> Well, IMHO Kopete shoul
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Isn't "network" needed for people who don't run NetworkManager?
The idea is that everybody should run NM. :-)
> For the longest time, NM only worked predictably for logged-in users,
> which made "network" service a requirement for servers with static IPs
> and such.
That has
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:32:42 -0400
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 08:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making
> >> everyone who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth,
> >> etc. triage them isn't exac
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Right. In fact, I think we're supporting way too many deprecated
> alternatives for way too long, e.g. when will the old legacy "network"
> service which has been deprecated for ages finally be gone?
Hopefully not before there is something capable of repla
On 08/24/2010 08:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making everyone
>> who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth, etc. triage them
>> isn't exactly an 'easy fix' - it *adds* complication to both paths.
>
> Righ
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I don't know a single student using Fedora anymore,
I'm a student using Fedora. :-p But not at Harvard. ;-)
> I don't know *what* to blame that on
I blame it on people slowly destroying what Fedora is all about, with things
like that "stable updates vision". And also on
Matthew Miller wrote:
> We do not have this luxury. If we "push" something broken to the people,
> the people will _completely understandably_ throw up their hands and say
> "huh, guess that sucked" and try another distribution. Or stay on their
> other distribution -- let Fedora be the playground
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> I don't think anyone can generalize that the usage of Fedora is
> declining. What we can prove, and certainly is troublesome, is that
> yum check-ins of successive releases have been dropping by a couple
> percent each release (although do
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Let us revisit this before the feature freeze.
I think you mean the feature completion deadline. What we call the "feature
freeze" has already passed. But we allow started features to get completed
until (shortly before) the Beta.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > > > - init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty
> > > > inodes on shutdown; initscr
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> If non-sysadmins will hardly notice the new init system, shouldn't the
> sysadmins, who will notice, be the primary consideration?
Non-sysadmins will notice that their system boots faster, which is a great
thing. Sysadmins will notice the negative effects.
At least that's
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making everyone
> who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth, etc. triage them
> isn't exactly an 'easy fix' - it *adds* complication to both paths.
Right. In fact, I think we're supporting way too many de
Mike McGrath wrote:
> The sad thing is that's such an easy fix by making brand new features for
> core components like this opt in, even if it's just for a single release.
FYI, while this looks like an option in this particular case, it's not
always possible, or doing it might require a lot more
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 16:45:49 -0500,
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>
> I'm of two minds here. On the one hand it would be nice to preserve the
> long-standing syntax convention for the reason Matt described. But on
> the other hand, putting the verb before the object seems to mesh well
> wit
+1 to kevin
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
>> Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now.
>
> We already had one, Fedora 9 (KDE 4.0.x anyone?
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
> Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now.
We already had one, Fedora 9 (KDE 4.0.x anyone?). And well, we survived, and
I still believe that what we did was ultimat
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 17:54 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > > that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are emitted to syslog with
> > > the same thought in mind - that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:06:41AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > and the people testing a particular Fedora release are not punished by
> > other people using another Fedora release and not testing the update
> > there.
>
> Except that, with that logic, half of the time, you'l
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:29:20AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Note that I have now changed git upstream to preferably return 3 or 5 if
> multiple different answers would make sense. This should avoid most
> problems with scripts doing "if [ `runlevel` = 3 ] ; then", even if
> that's a kinda
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:06:45PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> But we can't innovate at all without trying new things at some point.
> That point ought to be based on something solid like the acceptance
> criteria Bill's already writing up. Then FESCo can have more
> confidence in making a dec
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:36:54AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> $ systemd --test --system --unit=foobar.target
>
> This will dump you a lot of stuff, including, at the very end the
> transaction it would execute when it would be booted with this target as
> destination.
>
> This is mostly
On Wed, 25.08.10 01:16, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
> I don't see that behavior as being broken, since runlevels 2, 3 and 4 are
> the same thing (in the default configuration, and when they're not, this
> behavior will not appear), so it should not matter which you use. If scrip
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Here's another one:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624249#c6
>
> This will cause trouble with scripts which assume Red Hat's long practice
> of using runlevel 3 for text-only multiuser mode. They might be making a
> poor assumption, but those scripts are s
Let me explain what I think Lennart meant with those "And?" replies:
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org)
>> wrote:
>>> * Removable media that appear in fstab are usually marked noauto
>>
>> And?
>
> Systemd
Till Maas wrote:
> IMHO it is more a PITA if I had to push all updates in sync. If you want
> to push all updates in sync, you just have to wait till all updates
> match their stable criteria.
Not under my proposal, which would add together the karma values of all the
updates in the set (which is
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52:55PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > How about "broken"? Shorter, more straightforward, and avoids the
> > implication that the service was intentionally taken down for maintenance
> > (my first reaction both here and on Solaris).
>
> Well, I cannot make everybod
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> I don't understand your point. The probability of a hash collision is
> many orders less than 10^{-4}. Yet this isn't acceptable for you.
> However you find the 10^{-4} probability of failure for simultaneous
> pushing to different branches acceptable. Aren't you contradictin
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf
> Of pbrobin...@gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:03 PM
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Subject: Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
>
On Tue, 24.08.10 18:07, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49:56PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > Wait, so "--all" doesn't actually show me all targets, it shows me an
> > > apparently-arbitrary list of some of the possible targets?
> > It shows you a
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49:56PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Wait, so "--all" doesn't actually show me all targets, it shows me an
> > apparently-arbitrary list of some of the possible targets?
> It shows you all targets systemd knows about at that point in time.
> The list of thinkable
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:59:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:40 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > This *is* happening, and we need to tread carefully, because once you loose
> > respect and reputation, it is very, very hard to get back.
>
> I really think you're ex
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
>> that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are emitted to syslog with
>> the same thought in mind - that someone will read them - but that is
>> also not necessarily true.
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are emitted to syslog with
> > the same thought in mind - that someone will read them - but that is
> > also not necessarily t
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:32:32PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This isn't personal. It's a list of requirements that indicate where we need
> > to be in order to ship systemd as the default in Fedora 14. It doesn't
> > matter whose "fault" it is -- if it doesn't work, we can't ship it
> >
On Tue, 24.08.10 17:35, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:13:26PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > That said, on the VM I tried F14 upgrading straight from F12 all seem
> > > fine so far, although the output of systemctl is something I still need
> > >
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are emitted to syslog with
> the same thought in mind - that someone will read them - but that is
> also not necessarily true. But I would not want to see us discarding
> syslog, either.
We
On Tue, 24.08.10 17:13, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Actually it only shows you the active targets, those which a pending
> > job, and those which have failed before (i.e. the "interesting"
> > ones). If you
Matthew Miller wrote:
> The service command has a syntax like this:
>
> service servicename action
>
> where as systemctl has a syntax like this:
>
> systemctl action servicename.service
>
> This is inconvienient for the common case where more than one action is
> performed in sequence on the
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52:45AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I'm with Jon and Adam on this one. I just don't see how not having
> > an MTA by default is a win, except in disk space terms, and it takes up
> > a tiny amount
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:27:04PM +0100, Adam Huffman wrote:
> Not really related to the original discussion, but perhaps firstboot
> could be amended to add an alias when the first user is created such
> that they receive root's mail?
At the point where you're writing more code to fix a problem
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52:45AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> FWIW, I'm with Jon and Adam on this one. I just don't see how not having
> an MTA by default is a win, except in disk space terms, and it takes up
> a tiny amount of disk space (especially if we pick a lighter-weight one
> than sen
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:13:26PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > That said, on the VM I tried F14 upgrading straight from F12 all seem
> > fine so far, although the output of systemctl is something I still need
> > to get used to (I wonder what "maintenance" means referred to the
> > status
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/24/10 2:13 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:15:54PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> Because generally whats on the mainboard (or in the laptop) works. If
>> it didn't work, the first reaction isn't "Oh I need to go buy a better
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:54, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> > While I think this is a good idea I am concernced a bit that this makes
> > me responsible for stuff I am not willing to take responsibility
> > of. i.e. if something from this list is broken, but it isn't systemd's
> > fault th
On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > > - init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty
> > > inodes on shutdown; initscripts will use this method on shutdown.
> >
> > This is bad. Whil
That would be all grand and spiffy if it were actually faster bootup.
Bootchart here reports that systemd is 8 seconds *SLOWER* than upstart. No
idea why, but systemd just hangs for 8 seconds doing "nothing" that I can
see. No logs anywhere that are meaningful. Default clean install from
Alpha
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Actually it only shows you the active targets, those which a pending
> job, and those which have failed before (i.e. the "interesting"
> ones). If you pass --all it will show you inactive targets without
> pending jobs which have
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:15:54PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Because generally whats on the mainboard (or in the laptop) works. If
> it didn't work, the first reaction isn't "Oh I need to go buy a better
> one" it's "why the heck can't linux work with this, is linux still a
> piece of crap?".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/24/10 1:46 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:32 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> [...] In the event that F14 goes back
>>> to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
>>> received much testing. If we want t
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589261
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589261
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System
2010-08-24 17:13:46 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 st
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616128
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623627
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623627
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589261
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-24
17:11:21 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 sta
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623627
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-24
17:13:55 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 sta
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616128
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-24
17:11:26 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 sta
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616128
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System
2010-08-24 17:13:51 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 st
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589261
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616128
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623627
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-24
17:11:30 EDT ---
mldonkey-3.0.3-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 sta
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46:41PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
>
> > for workstation most users already use ubuntu. why? because it's more
> > user friendly.
>
> There is nothing wrong with using Ubuntu, if it servers their needs.
>
> > do you think worksta
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46:41PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
> for workstation most users already use ubuntu. why? because it's more
> user friendly.
There is nothing wrong with using Ubuntu, if it servers their needs.
> do you think workstation users will like this kind of changes?
If they
On Tue, 24.08.10 12:31, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> As I was thinking about Bug 626840, I noticed something. With the current
> runlevel system, it's easy to know what your options are. The systemd FAQ
> helpfully explains that "systemctl isolate graphical.target" is the
> replacem
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread,
> > there are many things that I think people would like covered with
> > systemd before they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to
> > attempt to
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-08-24)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-24/fesco.2010-08-24-19.30.log.html
..
Meeting summary
---
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:32 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> [...] In the event that F14 goes back
> > to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
> > received much testing. If we want to claim that it's safe to switch
> > back to upstart after beta, we need to be testing that
hi,
why i not like the idea of systemd?
it's something that dramatically change the system behavior. period.
this is different from all other/previous unix/linux system.
there're many config scripts, programs and third party packages which
are assume the old setup.
such basic changes need years for
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > From a practical point of view, I think what's actually important is:
> > -- if you're in single user mode → it says 'S'
> It actually returns "1" in this case.
What do you mean by "actually"? If you try it, you will see th
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > - init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty
> > inodes on shutdown; initscripts will use this method on shutdown.
>
> This is bad. While we support this just fine I think it is a really bad
> idea to reexec init at sh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/24/10 1:35 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> IMHO it is more a PITA if I had to push all updates in sync. If you want
> to push all updates in sync, you just have to wait till all updates
> match their stable criteria. And if you do not want this, you can pu
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:54:17PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> This is something I have been complaining about for a long time, especially
> since this now means the same update has different karma requirements on
> different branches, making it a PITA to push it in sync. (This wasn't that
> b
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
>> > > The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
>> > > keeping it around during pre-release, so
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > > The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
> > > keeping it around during pre-release, so that if we decide we need to
> > > fall back to upstart for fi
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > On Tue, 24.08.10 15:55, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> > > This is a very big change. chkconfig has worked for a long, long time. Its
> > > elegance and simplicity is one of the nice
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:15:43PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Well, also as stated in the bug :), always follow the /etc/inittab first. If
> > if it makes sense, perhaps systemd should change the default.target to
> > match.
> Maybe we should check AUTOEXEC.BAT first, too?
Cute.
The ans
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 14:07, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> They need to be treated individually.
>
> You've been there when Fedora Legacy failed. (In fact, it was YOUR project.)
> This (the excess testing requirements, in particular the requirement to test
> every single release
On 08/24/2010 03:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
>> The service command has a syntax like this:
>>
>> service servicename action
>>
>> where as systemctl has a syntax like this:
>>
>> systemctl action servicename.service
>>
>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Nor is testing / stability atomic / equal across the branches. While
>> the f13 package may work fine, the f12 build may have severe problems.
>
> Which is something which happens maybe 1 in 1000 times, and would happen
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
