On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Jude Nelson wrote:
>The reason they're working on kdbus at all is because they have
>discovered that it's costly to pipe a lot of data between dbus
>endpoints
reminds me of the time we had some momentum to have vloopback into
Linux. or even before that, the times
On 06/19/2015 02:59 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Clarke Sideroad writes:
I hoping the Kernel Developers as a combined whole would see the
bigger Linux picture well beyond the desktop.
I can't see the Kernel being made to swallow something that would
poison the whole multifaceted structure in the
Whelp, looks like kdbus in systemd is no longer optional (but to be fair,
its use can be disabled at runtime, and won't be used anyway if kdbus isn't
present in the kernel).
Announcement:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-June/033170.html
-Jude
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:0
On 06/19/2015 11:16 AM, Jude Nelson wrote:
Whelp, looks like kdbus in systemd is no longer optional (but to be
fair, its use can be disabled at runtime, and won't be used anyway if
kdbus isn't present in the kernel).
Announcement:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-June/
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:29:36PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
> I expect the dependency chain should be something like:
> depends on: init, -sysv-init | -epoch-init
> | -systemd-init | -openrc-init |
> -upstart-init
>
> And if each of those -*-init packages depended on their
> respective in
It does not make the kernel systems, but its presence might make some
poorly written program think systems is present. But poor code assumes
things all the time, so really it will not make a difference.
Arnt
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
htt
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:06:56AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
> On 06/19/2015 02:59 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> >Clarke Sideroad writes:
> >>I hoping the Kernel Developers as a combined whole would see the
> >>bigger Linux picture well beyond the desktop.
> >>I can't see the Kernel being made
Le 18/06/2015 17:23, Laurent Bercot a écrit :
Bow, since its possible to have seeral init systems installedd, and
even to have different subsytems started by different init systems
(not all running as PID 1, of course), perhaps the mutual exclusion
among the init systems is a bad idea.
Absol
