Yes. Eudev should be the target goal for now until Jude can get vdev
stabilized. There's also the aspect of using Busybox-mdev (mdev-like-a-boss
project has a lot of insight on this for generalized usages) though this would
forgo any allowances of evdev drivers for input devices and require the
LoginKit supposedly implements parts of the libsystemd IPC against DBus while
passing the remainder of logind function calls back to ConsoleKit2. LoginKit
only covers the "inhibit()" function while everything else is covered by
ConsoleKit2, for now at least. In LoginKit it only uses what the aut
When it comes to building packages, you can always run "rm" with an option
against the temporary directory where the packer is targeting to remove any
files related to systemd, use sed or patches against existing scripts or import
custom scripts and configurations, and then allow the packager to
Le 06/05/2015 19:49, Anto a écrit :
On 06/05/15 10:23, Didier Kryn wrote:
Dear devuaners,
Debatting wether Devuan should allow systemd usage or forbid it
completely, or wether it should eradicate systemd service files from
all packages is interesting, but for sure prematurate. Let's di
Am 06.05.2015 20:47 schrieb Nextime:
The official position is: we will support anything that can be
packaged without hijacking the whole system to be installed. Actually
systemd doesn't match this requirement, so, devuan will not support it
as long it doesn't radically change. Anyway we will not
On May 6, 2015 8:33:31 PM CEST, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>On 06/05/2015 19:49, Anto wrote:
>> When I started this thread, I genuinely asked technical question
>> related to what I am doing in removing systemd's files from Debian
>> sources of some packages. I am quite sure that I didn't propose or
>>
On 06/05/2015 19:49, Anto wrote:
When I started this thread, I genuinely asked technical question
related to what I am doing in removing systemd's files from Debian
sources of some packages. I am quite sure that I didn't propose or
demand that to be implemented in Devuan. I am doing that all sole
On 06/05/15 10:23, Didier Kryn wrote:
Dear devuaners,
Debatting wether Devuan should allow systemd usage or forbid it
completely, or wether it should eradicate systemd service files from
all packages is interesting, but for sure prematurate. Let's discuss
that when someone proposes to d
Apoligies for the finger trouble - I hit send instead of cancel.
On Wed, 6 May 2015, Jim Jackson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Anto wrote:
> > On 05/05/15 16:05, David Hare wrote:
> > >
> > > > The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
> > > > is the main reason to fo
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Anto wrote:
> On 05/05/15 16:05, David Hare wrote:
> >
> > > The decision in Debian to default the init system to systemd
> > > is the main reason to fork Debian in the first place.
> >
> > Not exactly.. The reason is Debian's decision to *require* systemd with the
> > only
On Wed, 6 May 2015 06:58:41 +
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> The exercise is to search for these functions in systemd's source code
> and create a .so file with only the required functions. The functions
> can also be reimplemented, but that takes more time than simply
> stripping the required funct
Isaac Dunham escribió:
Level 1:
If someone wants to use the dependency resolution that systemd has,
they need to have a configuration file for the software that specifies
how to start it and what needs to happen first.
[...]
I read Noel's comments as being in favor of leaving whatever is at
in
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:00 AM, wrote:
> Send Dng mailing list submissions to
> dng@lists.dyne.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > So why should we waste man-power on allowing to use systemd in a
> > distribution whose first aim and motivation is to provide a
> > systemd-free GNU/Linux?!?!?
>
> Nor should we waste manpower making it extra difficul
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:12:46PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 05:34:19PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> > >I meant "we should live with the fact that systemd is not unpluggable"
> > >:)
> >
> > Nicely put. But do you draw any implication from that vis-a-vis
> >
hi Edward,
On Wed, 06 May 2015, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> I am using lsof together with objdump -T executable to determine what
> systemd functions are imported by essential XFCE4 executables.
>
> For instance, this is for /usr/lib/gvfs/gvfs-udisks2-volume-monitor:
[...]
this was Dima's approac
dear Jaret,
thanks for your information
On Tue, 05 May 2015, Jaret Cantu wrote:
> eudev continues to pull in relevant udev changes from the systemd
> tree (without the init-specific filth, obviously) and even provides
> some fixes of its own. It is like a window into some magical world
> where
Dear devuaners,
Debatting wether Devuan should allow systemd usage or forbid it
completely, or wether it should eradicate systemd service files from all
packages is interesting, but for sure prematurate. Let's discuss that
when someone proposes to do the job.
Up to now nobody has
18 matches
Mail list logo
