Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On 16/06/15 20:14, Anto wrote: On 16/06/15 16:40, Isaac Dunham wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:09:43AM +0200, Anto wrote: On 16/06/15 10:58, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: Anto writes: Yes. I almost have everything to start trying to build epoch package, *except* one important point that I ha

Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On 16/06/2015 19:47, Anto wrote: On 16/06/15 20:42, Roger Leigh wrote: On 16/06/2015 18:14, Anto wrote: I was not really sure if script similar to update-rc.d would be relevant to epoch as the way the runlevel is being managed in epoch is different from sysvinit. That is why I am looking for ot

Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On 17/06/15 11:09, Roger Leigh wrote: On 16/06/2015 19:47, Anto wrote: Thanks a lot Roger for your explanation. However, I still fail understand how to implement what you explained without changing anything on any other packages that have daemons to be managed by epoch. As I mentioned on one

[DNG] chromium: unconditionally downloads binary blob

Just seen on the crypto mailing list, for all those chromium users ... Nik -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [cryptography] chromium: unconditionally downloads binary blob Date: Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2015, 14:12:17 From: Alexander Klimov An: cryptogra...@randombit.net

Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:09:32 + Roger Leigh wrote: > On 16/06/2015 19:47, Anto wrote: > > On 16/06/15 20:42, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> On 16/06/2015 18:14, Anto wrote: > >>> I was not really sure if script similar to update-rc.d would be > >>> relevant to epoch as the way the runlevel is being m

[DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits

Hi all, After the recent discussions, I'd like to point out that packages aren't the ONLY path to alternate inits. I've personally demonstrated that with SucklessInit+daemontoolsEncore, SucklessInit+s6, runit, and Epoch, it's quite doable to download, build, and install these things in parallel to

[DNG] Fwd: Gummiboot patch

Gummiboot is my favorite boot loader, mainly due to it loading the kernel from the EFI partition and thus not requiring a third partition for /boot when you use encrypted root. I first became familiar with it on Arch Linux well after their switch to systemd; but despite this project now being inte

Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25:28AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: [cut] > > What you say above is true. And what you say above is a catastrophe, > because sysvinit scripts are so crazy complicated that it's useless for > a mere mortal to understand them. The same is true of OpenRC init > scripts. May

Re: [DNG] Fwd: Gummiboot patch

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:43:03 +0200 Riccardo Boninsegna wrote: > Gummiboot is my favorite boot loader, mainly due to it loading the > kernel from the EFI partition and thus not requiring a third partition > for /boot when you use encrypted root. > > I first became familiar with it on Arch Linux w

Re: [DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits

On 17/06/15 17:37, Steve Litt wrote: Hi all, After the recent discussions, I'd like to point out that packages aren't the ONLY path to alternate inits. I've personally demonstrated that with SucklessInit+daemontoolsEncore, SucklessInit+s6, runit, and Epoch, it's quite doable to download, build

Re: [DNG] [Dng] epoch feature request

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:21:03AM +0200, Anto wrote: > Hello Isaac, > > After reading http://sources.debian.net/src/dpkg/1.18.1/doc/triggers.txt/ > (over and over), it looks that dpkg-trigger is a better solution than > monitoring /etc/init.d using inotify(). However, I still fail to understand >

Re: [DNG] Fwd: Gummiboot patch

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > My question is whether you or anyone else is willing to > completely fork this software. > To be dependable, this source code needs to be preserved, under a > different name, and maintained completely separately from the thing > called "Gummiboo

Re: [DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:27:21 +0200 Anto wrote: > > > On 17/06/15 17:37, Steve Litt wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > After the recent discussions, I'd like to point out that packages > > aren't the ONLY path to alternate inits. I've personally > > demonstrated that with SucklessInit+daemontoolsEncore,

Re: [DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits

On 18/06/15 00:43, Steve Litt wrote: On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:27:21 +0200 Anto wrote: On 17/06/15 17:37, Steve Litt wrote: Hi all, After the recent discussions, I'd like to point out that packages aren't the ONLY path to alternate inits. I've personally demonstrated that with SucklessInit+d