On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:27 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> "plymouth_running()"? Plymouth? Systemd knows about plymouth? Why?
Because it has implications for the correct handoff of tty1, I believe.
This was one of the trickier things to get right in systemd.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Communit
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:35:19PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > On 06/15/2011 11:03 AM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
> >> - At policy build time, precompute a DFA for all of the regexps, and
> >> store it in a file. This file could be mmap()ed
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 09:40 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 21:23 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > systemd might be happy if you change it later, but other stuff is not.
> > The canonical example is X, where the hostname was used as the xauth key
> > to allow you to actually tal
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 11:03 AM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
>> - At policy build time, precompute a DFA for all of the regexps, and
>> store it in a file. This file could be mmap()ed into any user of the
>> policy, requiring no malloc(), and allowing the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:12:35AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 11:03 AM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >> Ways to improve the situation for systemd would include:
> >> - Only load a subset of file_contexts entries, similar to u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2011 11:03 AM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> Ways to improve the situation for systemd would include:
>> - Only load a subset of file_contexts entries, similar to udev.
>> - Only load the f
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Ways to improve the situation for systemd would include:
> - Only load a subset of file_contexts entries, similar to udev.
> - Only load the file contexts entries temporarily, using selabel_open +
> selabel_close to bracket entire blocks wh
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:03 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 13.06.11 18:18, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Lennart,
> > > >
> > > > s
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 21:23 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> The next example is apps that try to find out your IP address by
> looking
> up your hostname. That's completely broken too. Do you have multiple
> interfaces? Multiple IP addresses? Are you behind NAT? Yeah, all
> that
> will torpedo hos
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:53 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> The memory problem is just the share number of file context that we are
> loading, each line of the file_context file is a regex. Currently the
> file_context file on my Rawhide machine is 4209 lines. If we can
> determine the only file
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 21:23 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> systemd might be happy if you change it later, but other stuff is not.
> The canonical example is X, where the hostname was used as the xauth key
> to allow you to actually talk to the X server. When the hostname
> changed, there was no aut
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:21 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
> > > > time ?
> > > >
> > > > The user
Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) said:
> > In this case you are not better/worse than before, once the network will
> > come up you'll add a script to change the hostname.
> > Setting it earlier in systemd makes no difference.
>
> You continue to avoid answering my question: WHY systemd, a se
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:55:08PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> With sufficient amount of nutty hackery it may be possible to figure is
> out, but it will be either racy, or will require labeling (process
> groups? session ids? cgroups?) which, in general, is not reliable:
> processes can escape
Am 14.06.2011 16:36, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
>> prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
>> daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to not
>> use it.
>
> C
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:36:25PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
> > prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
> > daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to n
On 06/14/2011 06:36 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> You go quite farther than that.
>
> "We can now boot a system shell-free". *Shell-free*.
>
> You are not saying "driving boot process by shell scripts is slow
> because ... ... ..." (an argument I would agree with), you are
> aiming at *eliminating* s
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
> prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
> daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to not
> use it.
ConsoleKit is not optional (at least in Fedora 7 to 15).
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
> > > time ?
> > >
> > > The user might want to change it?
> >
> > Does setting it at boot time pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/14/2011 04:00 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 13.06.11 18:18, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Lenna
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
> > time ?
> >
> > The user might want to change it?
>
> Does setting it at boot time prevent you from changing it later ?
No, systemd will initialize it at boot and
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:42:42PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> (anything they could do in shell scripts, but not they can't). This will
> feel good, right? You will be such an important guy!
I think most lurkers have understood you seem to have some personal
issues with Lennart. Please still sh
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 12:53 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> daemontools can be set up in a way than most init scripts are
> > no longer necessary. It also achieves parallelized start.
>
> This is bogus.
Amazingly deep argument. Can you do better than this?
> > > > > Hmm? systemd is an init s
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 14.06.11 12:36, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > > Slide 6:
> >
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:53 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Changing a machine hostname at random times is just asking for
> > trouble.
>
> Well, but it has been used in the past, and as definitely something we
> should support in one way or another.
Never said we shouldn't allow it to chang
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:14, Steve Clark (scl...@netwolves.com) wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 04:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Mon, 13.06.11 19:02, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vl
On Tue, 14.06.11 12:36, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Slide 6:
> > > "We can now boot a system shell-free"
> > >
> > > IOW: shell is bad, m
On 06/14/2011 04:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 19:02, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of
On 06/14/2011 11:43 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> For what's left, eg ARM9+ that you can run normal Linux and Fedora on,
>> ipv6 is going to be workable if the memory allows. Looking a year or
>> two ahead, where "Embedded" will extend to Cortex A15 quad core, and
>> IPv6 will
Is not it easy to remove everything from:
default.target
basic.target
graphical.target
...
and then add whatever we want to start or to execute or mount?
I do not really care what systemd CAN do, but really care what it is doing on
my system.
So, may be some cleaning will be the wise solution.
On Tue, 14.06.11 12:17, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:42 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Maybe. It's not up to a piece of software to decide.
> > > In Unix, admins should have
On 06/14/2011 04:13 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> I talk to a lot of embedded people. Tiny machines are not going to
> disappear anytime soon - they just go into smaller and smaller gadgets.
>
> For example, there are still a noticeable segment of NOMMU CPUs, meaning
> if you really target embedded,
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:31 +0100, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
> >> Dude, systemd requires the functionality of the three modules it loads
> >> explicitly.
> >
> > systemd requires ipv6.
> > And you pitch systemd to be used by embedded devices.
> >
> > Do you really think all embedded devices will be
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Slide 6:
> > "We can now boot a system shell-free"
> >
> > IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy is good.
>
> Oh god. If you had listened you'd have understood that
On 06/14/2011 11:17 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Hi -
>> Dude, systemd requires the functionality of the three modules it loads
>> explicitly.
>
> systemd requires ipv6.
> And you pitch systemd to be used by embedded devices.
>
> Do you really think all embedded devices will be
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:42 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Maybe. It's not up to a piece of software to decide.
> > In Unix, admins should have power to decide, not programs.
> > Programs provide the means, they don't dicta
On Tue, 14.06.11 09:20, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 21:44 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > I wouldn't bother much if it would be just one tiny bit of strange code
> > > in systemd, but it is FAR from being the only such code. There are lots
> > > of similar
On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > In this case you are not better/worse than before, once the network will
> > come up you'll add a script to change the hostname.
> > Setting it earlier in systemd makes no difference.
>
> You continue to avoid answering my qu
On Mon, 13.06.11 19:02, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > > We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
> > > > most trivial system calls
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:18, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > Hi Lennart,
> > >
> > > systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> > > I ever played w
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:18, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > Hi Lennart,
> > >
> > > systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> > > I ever played w
On Mon, 13.06.11 12:37, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
> > > most trivial system calls known to men and doing this with a
> > separate
> > > binary is just
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >> "plymouth_running()"? Plymouth? Systemd knows about plymouth? Why?
> >
> > Because we need to constantly send updates to it. It's a trivial socket
> > operation. It
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:13:01AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Try "rm /usr/sbin/console-kit-daemon". Works like a charm.
>
> Randomly removing pieces of installed packages has never been supported.
I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
prefi
On Mon, 13.06.11 17:19, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:13:39PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Matthew Garrett
> >wrote:
> > The point of providing a platform is that developers can make certain
> > a
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 13.06.11 15:27, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > kmod_setup(); <=== ???
> >
> > We load a couple of kernel modul
On 06/14/2011 12:50 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 21:44 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> I wouldn't bother much if it would be just one tiny bit of strange code
>>> in systemd, but it is FAR from being the only such code. There are lots
>>> of similar stuff, and it's not accidental.
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 21:44 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > I wouldn't bother much if it would be just one tiny bit of strange code
> > in systemd, but it is FAR from being the only such code. There are lots
> > of similar stuff, and it's not accidental.
>
> It is definitely not accidental, but unles
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot time?
> > >
> > > The problem with having specific hostname I had is when I boot many
> > > dozens of diskless mac
Karl Misselt wrote:
> Coming out of pure lurk mode - I think Seth's observations here
> are true for a many of the things that have gone on in Fedora
> recently (at the risk of opening wounds... eg. gnome3).
If GNOME 3 is your problem, try KDE Plasma or Xfce.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel maili
Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Try "rm /usr/sbin/console-kit-daemon". Works like a charm.
Randomly removing pieces of installed packages has never been supported.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 06/13/2011 02:10 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
>> Slide 14:
>> "systemd is an Init System"
>> "systemd is a Platform"
>>
>> systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
>> Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his pr
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> Slide 14:
> "systemd is an Init System"
> "systemd is a Platform"
>
> systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
> Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
> wants, even Nuclear Submari
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:33:19AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Uh, and even much healthier than Upstart, which you seem to be a big fan
> of. Ohloh lists 3 patch authors. (But I figure that is out-of-date, it
> cannot be that low)
>
I'm guessing its just ohloh having as much trouble operat
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot time?
> >
> > The problem with having specific hostname I had is when I boot many
> > dozens of diskless machines off the very same network filesystem,
> > I definitely DONT w
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 19:02 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > > We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
> > > > most trivial system calls known to men an
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
> > > most trivial system calls known to men and doing this with a
> > separate
> > > binary is just absurd. Thi
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
> > most trivial system calls known to men and doing this with a
> separate
> > binary is just absurd. This way we also can ensure that the hostname
> is
> > always init
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> ~11MB equals ~8 cents of RAM ... so meh.
>
> Are you volunteering to buy more RAM for every Fedora user? ;)
Maybe if you send me the money first ;)
(Sorry for private spam, hit wrong button)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:13:39PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Matthew Garrett
>wrote:
> The point of providing a platform is that developers can make certain
> assumptions about available functionality. It's no longer reasonable to
> treat
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Hi Lennart,
> >
> > systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> > I ever played with.
> >
> > Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think
> > u
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 06:01:22PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
> > > sometimes compiled as module only a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 06:01:22PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
> > sometimes compiled as module only and which cannot be autoloaded for a
> > reason or another. This i
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 13.06.11 15:27, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > kmod_setup(); <=== ???
>
> We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
> sometimes compiled as module only and which cannot
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>> "plymouth_running()"? Plymouth? Systemd knows about plymouth? Why?
>
> Because we need to constantly send updates to it. It's a trivial socket
> operation. It's a trivial thing and spawning a separate process to send
> those updates eac
On Mon, 13.06.11 15:27, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> kmod_setup(); <=== ???
We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
sometimes compiled as module only and which cannot be autoloaded for a
reason or another. This is ipv6, autofs4, unix.ko, a
Hi Lennart,
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 10:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 10.06.11 15:07, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
>
> I have no such desire.
What is this then?
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
...
On Fri, 10.06.11 19:50, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2011 03:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> > what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
> > upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the best place for it.
> >
> > Rahul
>
> Beg
On Fri, 10.06.11 18:42, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > > Why does systemd link against libpam?
> > > systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
> >
> > to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
>
> I don't
On Fri, 10.06.11 18:58, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> > > On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > >> systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catc
On Fri, 10.06.11 15:07, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
>
> systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> I ever played with.
>
> Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think
> using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:42:11 +0200 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > > Why does systemd link against libpam?
> > > systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
> >
> > to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
>
> I don't see any users o
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:19:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:19:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first
> >> version
> >> of RHL (4.0) I
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first
>> version
>> of RHL (4.0) I started using back in 96.
>>
> This is somewhat misleading. There ha
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first version
> of RHL (4.0) I started using back in 96.
>
This is somewhat misleading. There have been many rewrites of the init
system in the past decade. In f
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 03:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> > what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
> > upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the best place for it.
> >
> > Rahul
>
> Beg to differ - rather v
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> wrote:
> > Hi Lennart,
> >
> > systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> > I ever played with.
> >
> > Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think
> >
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
>
> systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
> I ever played with.
>
> Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think
> using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit much.
~11
On 11 Jun 2011 03:35, "Rahul Sundaram" wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2011 05:20 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > Lets be blunt here - he pushed very very very hard on these very lists
> > to get systemd in - now its in F15 and there are problems - so no
> > punting please. Upstream and fedora are the same f
On 06/11/2011 05:20 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> Lets be blunt here - he pushed very very very hard on these very lists
> to get systemd in - now its in F15 and there are problems - so no
> punting please. Upstream and fedora are the same for syste
That is a gross over simplification. Fedora i
Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Mem total:2035840 anon:431208 map:78924 free:419084
[snip]
> 1 15384 11856 13664 1340 11752 0 132 /sbin/init
So this singleton process is taking 0.76% of your RAM. What the heck are you
complaining about?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On 06/10/2011 03:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
> upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the best place for it.
>
> Rahul
Beg to differ - rather vehemently too - politely but vehemently.
systemd is only available
On 06/10/2011 04:44 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
>>> Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
>>
>> I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
>> what w
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> I guess that your reference to moving to upstream indicates that
> systemd is now sufficiently established that discussion of problems is
> an upstream issue for bug triage/fixing? I would imagine that the user
> list may have useful exchange
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
>> Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
>
> I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
> what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussi
On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the be
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> > On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> >> systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
>> >> signa
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> It's the *fourth* largest process on my system!
>
>
> # ldd `which systemd`
1) Looking at what libraries a binary links to a is a terrible way to
optimize memory usage; try massif, say
2) It'd be a lot more productive to be positive and n
On 06/10/2011 08:42 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>>> Why does systemd link against libpam?
>>> systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
>>
>> to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
>
> I don't see any users of this feature on m
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> > On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> >> systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
> >> signal, dumps core and freezes, but does not exit.
> >>
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > Why does systemd link against libpam?
> > systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
>
> to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
I don't see any users of this feature on my F15.
I searched with Google and come up empty too.
On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
>> signal, dumps core and freezes, but does not exit.
>> ^^^
> So you just end up with a "froze" system ins
On 06/10/2011 09:07 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think
using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit much.
systemctl --all shows 2
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
I really do. syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck, and a dozen other things
I forget or don't know.
You're exaggerating.
Why does systemd link against
On 06/10/2011 03:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
> I really do. syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck, and a dozen other things
> I forget or don't know.
You're exaggerating.
> Why does systemd link against libpam?
> systemd does logins now, not /bi
96 matches
Mail list logo
