Le mercredi 02 juin 2010 à 18:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
> /etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
> package. And then, if something that is not systemd is booted it will
> only see t
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > I think that this would be a huge mistake. Enrico is a very talented
> > packagers he generally is ahead of his time. I was myself sometimes
> > annoyed by the peculiarities of his packages, but he always compl
Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I think that this would be a huge mistake. Enrico is a very talented
> packagers he generally is ahead of his time. I was myself sometimes
> annoyed by the peculiarities of his packages, but he always comply to
> guidelines.
No he doesn't. For example, SVN revision tags in V
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:13:02PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
> still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
> packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.
>
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:43:58AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chen Lei wrote:
> > I found the maintainer violates fedora package/naming guideline many
> > times, we need a people to persuade him to obey those guideline.
>
> IMHO we need to unsponsor him and orphan his packages. There are way too
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:50:39AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
> > packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora
> > to prevent people from providing functionality above the
2010/6/4 Kevin Kofler :
>
> The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style initscripts
> compliant to our guidelines) gets pushed to a subpackage to make room for
> the optional and completely unneccessary junk, and that in some cases yum
> prefers the nonstandard subpackages.
>
> Plus
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
> packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora
> to prevent people from providing functionality above the minimum.
The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style
On 06/04/2010 08:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Right, in this case the Version tag is a blatant violation of our guidelines
> and shows that the maintainer either doesn't understand them at all or
> doesn't care about them at all. Either way, he needs to get unsponsored.
>
Would you mind fil
Chen Lei wrote:
> I found the maintainer violates fedora package/naming guideline many
> times, we need a people to persuade him to obey those guideline.
IMHO we need to unsponsor him and orphan his packages. There are way too
many guideline violations and bizarre nonstandard stuff in his package
On 06/02/2010 11:11 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
=
> If someone would let the FPC know how to write good upstart scripts and
> packages we could certainly write up minimum requirements for the case where
> someone does want to package an upstart script.
And systemd is coming soon too ... i think it
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:18:59AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/6/3 Toshio Kuratomi :
> >>
> > This is intended to tell people that SystemVinit scripts are mandatory for
> > services managed by the init system. But providing native upstart as an
> > addition (or initng, minit, etc) is not prohibi
2010/6/3 Toshio Kuratomi :
>>
> This is intended to tell people that SystemVinit scripts are mandatory for
> services managed by the init system. But providing native upstart as an
> addition (or initng, minit, etc) is not prohibited by this.
>
> -Toshio
>
>
I don't think provide both upstart and
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:30:23AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/6/3 Matt McCutchen :
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Chen Lei wrote:
> >> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> >> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one wi
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 01:43:10PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> > think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> > transition period packages should just ship both fi
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has
On Wed, 02.06.10 15:27, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Michael Cronenworth writes:
> > If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> > all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> > confidence since everything that has been said about
Michael Cronenworth writes:
> If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
> said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinve
On Wed, 02.06.10 13:43, Michael Cronenworth (m...@cchtml.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> > think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> > transition period packages should just ship bot
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> transition period packages should just ship both files and it'll work
> with both init systems.
s/systemd/upstart/
This is not
2010/6/3 Matt McCutchen :
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chen Lei wrote:
>> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
>> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
>> > scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a h
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chen Lei wrote:
> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> > scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> > sysinit
2010/6/3 Kevin Kofler :
> Chen Lei wrote:
>> Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
>> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
>> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
>> sysinit subpackage?
>
> No. This is against
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> That would require systemd to be installed though, since otherwise
> /etc/systemd doesn't exist (or every package that wants to drop a file
> in there has to own it).
>
> I guess the directory could be added to chkconfig or even filesystem.
Tha
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Even if systemd becomes the default, I doubt upstart is going to disappear
> from the repository.
Uh, IMHO it should get obsoleted by systemd and removed from the repository.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproje
Chen Lei wrote:
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> sysinit subpackage?
No. This is against our packaging guidelines. You'll
Once upon a time, Jeff Spaleta said:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
> > /etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
> > package. And then, if something that is not s
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
> /etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
> package. And then, if something that is not systemd is booted it will
> only see the init scri
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
>
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> sysinit subpackage?
No, that's crazy.
On Wed, 02.06.10 08:12, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Assuming moving forward a maintainer has the option to support
> sysinitv, upstart and systemd, what can be done to make sure the
> correct init configuration is loaded on the system? Other than
> including all the configs in the b
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> That being said, it seems that the new init system, systemd is already in
> the pipe. Doing a policy for an obsolete technology may be some time
> lost. Maybe even better would be preparing a policy for systemd scripts
> than doing a policy fo
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:13:02PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
> still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
> packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.
>
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide
Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.
Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
one with the tranditional rc.d contents an
33 matches
Mail list logo
