On 09/17/2011 07:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> There was a standards body tracking ORB, I forget which one, but none
> of that matters as the folks who should use it - system builders - saw
> it's flaws quite quickly. Even Gnome has dropped it and are now moving
> over to dbus.
Ooh, I know this
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:59:44PM +0100, Mick wrote
> The only drawback is the 2 minutes it will take a user the first time this
> change is introduced to build the initramfs and change the kernel line in
> grub.conf. I am warming up to this proposal because it seems to me that it
> will end
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:13:36 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> ORBit was the GNOME implementation of ORB; I don't remember what KDE
> used, but I believe it was also ORB based.
KDE 2/3 used DCOP, their own IPC as there was no decent standard system
at the time. DBus was heavily influenced by DC
On Sep 18, 2011 9:50 PM, "Joost Roeleveld" wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 02:43:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> > As I keep saying: code talks.
>
> Yes, but the developers are quiet with regards to that patch.
> I can understand if it takes some time to analyse a patch, but 4 mont
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 02:43:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés
wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld
wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 19:31:31 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> There are two principle things I dislike about D-Bus.
>
> 1) It doesn't support live upgrading of the daemon. We discussed the
> reasons behind this several weeks ago, as I recall. Transparent
> session control handoff is, of course, compli
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:25:11PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 01:43:17 PM Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s
> wrote:
> > (This mail is to keep the guys un -user in the loop about -devel).
> >
> > OK, so Jo
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> 2) It comes with (or appears to come with) a Linux-centric (sometimes
>> even a Linux-only) view.
>
> I think you got it wrong. dbus runs in every single Unix, I believe:
> it cert
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:24:39 -0400
>> Michael Mol wrote:
>> Dbus is an interesting piece of technology and rather useful, it does
>> it a disservice to knock it.
>
> Honestly, I real
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:24:39 -0400
> Michael Mol wrote:
> Dbus is an interesting piece of technology and rather useful, it does
> it a disservice to knock it.
Honestly, I really only want to provide reasonable criticism. I just
tend to get
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:24:39 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> > BTW, there *was* an standard that did everything dbus does: ORB, the
> > Object Request Broker. They tried to use that as IPC years ago, but
> > is so damn complicated to implement right they decided to better
> > implement a new standard.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-17 20:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> They are standard in the sense that they are a low level communication
>> standard API. An IPC is *way* more than that; dbus is an IPC, because
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Inte
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés >>> I would like for
>>> you to be more specific about them.
>>>
>>
On 2011-09-17 20:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> They are standard in the sense that they are a low level communication
> standard API. An IPC is *way* more than that; dbus is an IPC, because
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Inter-process_communication
> then you have high level
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés >>> I would like for
>> you to be more specific about them.
>>
>> Sockets, be they UNIX domain sockets, IPv4 or IPv6.
> [sni
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:0
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> [[snippage]]
>>> I still think Gnome (or any other desktop environment) should not care about
>>> which init-system
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
[[snippage]]
>> I still think Gnome (or any other desktop environment) should not care about
>> which init-system is being used.
>
> And they will not. They will only use some ca
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 08:45:15 AM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > I think systemd gives you that in servers. With OpenRC and Apache with
>> > user CGI scripts, ¿d
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >> "Last time I checked, neither
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:45:15 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I consider dbus to be part of the GUI as I don't see a reason for
> apache, syslog, nfs, samba, to be using dbus to communicate with
> each other.
To be fair, dbus could be useful for service apps too. It provides a
standard message
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 08:45:15 AM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > I think systemd gives you that in servers. With OpenRC and Apache with
> > user CGI scripts, ¿do you know how to list the httpd daemon spawned
> > processes,
On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> "Last time I checked, neither GNOME nor Emacs demanded that Gentoo
> >> developers or users
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:21:12 PM Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2011 11:00 PM, "Dale" wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >>> Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
>
> longer
>
> >>> be static
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 10:57 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Give it time. Something will need /home on the root partition next.
> Like someone else posted, we are headed towards windows land with
> this.
> I won't be surprised if /boot will have to be on / next too.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
Funnily enou
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Dale wrote:
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluanwrote:
Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
longer
be statically linked, thus making initr* 'blew up' in size?
When more
On Sep 16, 2011 11:00 PM, "Dale" wrote:
>
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
longer
>>>
>>> be statically linked, thus making initr* 'blew up' in size?
>>>
>>> When mor
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
>>> longer
>>> be statically linked, thus making initr* 'blew up' in size?
>>>
>>> When
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no
>>> longer
>>> be statically linked, thus making initr* 'blew up' in size?
>>>
>>> When
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Speaking of fsck, didn't someone lamented the fact that fsck can no longer
be statically linked, thus making initr* 'blew up' in size?
When more and more utilities go the non-statically-linked way...
congratulation
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2011 4:03 PM, "Joost Roeleveld" wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:38:41 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >
> [--major snippage--]
>> > I see it the other way around: you ensure that your initramfs is in
>> > sync wi
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastia
Hi, Michael.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:22:17PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> I don't see an ebuild for Emacs CC-Mode.
CC Mode is distributed along with the rest of {,X}Emacs (although I think
XEmacs half-splits all its packages off from its cord).
Those version of CC Mode are somewhat out of dat
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:54:46 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Using layout suggestions from install docs to justify what the udev
> > maintainers want to do is simply disingenuous.
>
> I referenced that asa response to the list of "distro-guides".
I was backing you up, not arguing against you
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 8:22 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> But 3.6 introduced a *ton* of new dependencies that the Gentoo folks
> haven't been able to work out properly in portage.[1]
>
> Of course, that's also likely an indication that Eclipse is getting
On 9/15/2011 8:22 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
I don't show an ebuild for eclipse (I see dev-java/ant-eclipse-ecj,
dev-java/eclipse-ecj and dev-util/eclipse-sdk). Last time I poked
eclipse, it was a royal pain using any *DT unless one downloaded it as
a packaged deal. Version dependencies were a pain.
On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:00:16 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:46:02 +0200
>
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Anyway, Debian is the only "big" distro recommending separated /usr,
> > > and then only for multiuser setups. It's really years since I've
> > > looked at the reco
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:46:02 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Anyway, Debian is the only "big" distro recommending separated /usr,
> > and then only for multiuser setups. It's really years since I've
> > looked at the recommended partition schemes: when I started using
> > Linux, a separated /hom
On Thursday, 15. September 2011 20:22:17 Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Leonardo Guilherme
> >
> > wrote:
> >> I do not know the state of Geanny since I last checked (couple of
> >> years
> >> ago), but the highligh
On Sep 16, 2011 4:03 PM, "Joost Roeleveld" wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:38:41 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
[--major snippage--]
> > I see it the other way around: you ensure that your initramfs is in
> > sync with your system. In other words: the initramfs contains a subset
>
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler
>
> wrote:
> > Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:38:41 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:04:37 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Mick wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Mic
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:34:11 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> [ Hugemongous snip ]
>
> > If the Gentoo-devs come up with a fool-proof solution
>
> No such thing in computing, I think.
I'm afraid you're right on this as that is
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 06:44:58 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:16:03 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Leonardo Guilherme
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not know the state of Geanny since I last checked (couple of years
>> ago), but the highlight capabilites of KDevelop got my eye. It highlights
>> local variables in dif
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:16:03 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>>
>>> > I would estimate that the vast, vast, v
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:16:03 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
>> > I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are those
>> > such as myslelf, who h
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:16:03 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are those
> > such as myslelf, who have no opinion whatsoever, and either will not be
> > affected
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:05:29 PM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Leonardo Guilherme
> >
> > wrote:
> >> I do not know the state of Geanny since I last checked (couple of
> >> years
> >> ago), but the highl
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:04:37 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Mick wrote:
>> > On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> > 1. The minimal initramfs will only need to be
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Alexander Tanyukevich
wrote:
> Try eclipse with cdk (C/C++ developr kit). Last time I've used it 3
> years ago, but it was really good...
Sorry it's called CDT.
--
Alexander Tanyukevich
atanyukev...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> I'm not touching KDE again for a while. I got nailed pretty bad with a
> NVidia/Konsole/KWin, and I really wasn't using much of KDE.
>
> That said, I might poke KDevelop again; I haven't poked it in years.
> Geany is new since I last dug arou
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 07:37:17 PM pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-15 16:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as
> > Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of
> > possible setups is suddenly the double it wa
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
[ Hugemongous snip ]
> If the Gentoo-devs come up with a fool-proof solution
No such thing in computing, I think. But I also think is really
laudable that you want to ensure no many users will get bitten by this
change.
And I also tend to b
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 07:15:27 PM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:37:53 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > There are 3 solutions for this:
> > 1) The easy way out: the whole user-space must be available before udev
> > 2) udev actually includes correct error-handling for this
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:04:37 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Mick wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > 1. The minimal initramfs will only need to be built once (and rarely
> > rebuilt thereafter). This removes
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote:
>> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the
>> > > sa
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 01:43:17 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés
wrote:
> (This mail is to keep the guys un -user in the loop about -devel).
>
> OK, so Joost posted his proposal to -dev:
The thread on gentoo-dev is not yet finished
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the
> > > same
> > > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better.
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler
wrote:
> Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
>> wrote:
>>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>
with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the same
>> > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better.
>>
>> You are one
Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
> wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>
>>> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make no
>>> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems.
>>
>
On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the same
> > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better.
>
> You are one of very few that feel this way.
You are probably correct that
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler
wrote:
> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>
>> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make no
>> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems.
>
> With "Microsoft Windows" you will be able to do anything,
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:47:34 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> > The main purpose of udev is to populate the /dev-tree.
> > The running of scripts based on /dev-tree events should be in a
> > seperate tool that starts later in the boot-process.
>
> I'm not *entirely* convinced this is the case, becau
Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make no
> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems.
With "Microsoft Windows" you will be able to do anything, so it will
make no sense to keep supporting "Microsoft Windows"-le
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Leonardo Guilherme
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not know the state of Geanny since I last checked (couple of years
>> ago), but the highlight capabilites of KDevelop got my eye. It highlights
>> local variables in dif
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Leonardo Guilherme
wrote:
I do not know the state of Geanny since I last checked (couple of years
> ago), but the highlight capabilites of KDevelop got my eye. It highlights
> local variables in different colors in the same context, so something like
>
> int foo(f
2011/9/15 Michael Mol
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:35:37 -0400, Michael Mol wrote about Re: Really
> > OT now (Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr):
> >
> >> It occurred to me that having a decent C and C++ editing en
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:04:37 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > 1. The minimal initramfs will only need to be built once (and rarely
> > rebuilt thereafter). This removes one of my fears and it was a main
> > objection for me
> > - I would hate to have to rebuild initramfs every time I roll a
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:35:37 -0400, Michael Mol wrote about Re: Really
> OT now (Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr):
>
>> It occurred to me that having a decent C and C++ editing environment
>> might ease some of my
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15. September 2011 16:48:45 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> > I agree he is wrong about the solution as well.
>> >
>> > I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:35:37 -0400, Michael Mol wrote about Re: Really
OT now (Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr):
> It occurred to me that having a decent C and C++ editing environment
> might ease some of my of the spoilage I've experienced in Visual
> Studio for C++. I'll be che
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:37:53 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> There are 3 solutions for this:
> 1) The easy way out: the whole user-space must be available before udev
> 2) udev actually includes correct error-handling for this and retries
> 3) udev splits this into 2 seperate tools
4) udev remain
On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, 15. September 2011 16:48:45 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I agree he is wrong about the solution as well.
> >
> > I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list to see how the
> > developers actually feel about
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
>> wrote:
>>> >> I'm not entirely convinced this is the
On 2011-09-15 16:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as
> Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of
> possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not.
> KISS.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:16:24 PM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joost Roeleveld
wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:03:09 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> >
> > wrote:
> >> The problem with this is that y
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:03:09 AM Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> wrote:
>> The problem with this is that you now need to manage synchronization
>> between the kernel event processor and
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:03:09 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld
wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> >
> > wrote:
> >> >> I'm not entirely convinced t
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:57:27 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Let me throw my own guess of how they came out with the corrent
> proposed solution. I repeat: is my own guess: I am not the one calling
> the shots, so maybe I'm completely wrong.
Ok and I do actually think you are correc
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, 15. September 2011 11:03:09 Michael Mol wrote:
>> > Yes, except that udev ONLY handles kernel-events and doesn't process any
>> > "actions" itself.
>> > These are placed on a seperate queue for a seperate process.
>>
>>
On Thursday, 15. September 2011 11:03:09 Michael Mol wrote:
> > Yes, except that udev ONLY handles kernel-events and doesn't process any
> > "actions" itself.
> > These are placed on a seperate queue for a seperate process.
>
> The problem with this is that you now need to manage synchronization
>
On Thursday, 15. September 2011 16:48:45 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I agree he is wrong about the solution as well.
>
> I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list to see how the
> developers actually feel about possible splitting udev into 2 parts.
I've read it there. Thanks for doi
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as
> Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of
> possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not.
> KISS.
If you want KISS
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> wrote:
>> >> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, because it feels like
>> >> some situations like network devic
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> wrote:
>> >> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, because it feels like
>> >> some situations like network devic
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, because it feels like
>>> some situations like network devices (nbd, iSCSI) or loopback would
>>> require userland tools to bring up onc
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:32:50 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld
wrote:
> >> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, because it feels like
> >> some situations like network devices (nbd, iSCSI) or loopback would
> >> require userland tools to
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, because it feels like
>> some situations like network devices (nbd, iSCSI) or loopback would
>> require userland tools to bring up once networking is up.
>
> Yes, but the kernel-events referenc
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:47:34 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> > The main purpose of udev is to populate the /dev-tree.
> > The running of scripts based on /dev-tree events should be in a seperate
> > tool that starts later in the boot-process.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, be
On 14 September 2011, at 22:34, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> …
>> That's got nothing to do with it, and it's rude of you to make this
>> about Canek, IMO.
>
> Given how much Canek has been saying about free/open source recently, the
> attitudes he's been attributing to its developers (which don't acco
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> There are not many people who agree with you here.
> The changes will lead to a C:-drive, similar to MS Windows, where everything
> has to be a single partition.
Technically, this isn't true. %PROGRAMFILES need not be on
%SYSTEMDRIVE%. %PR
On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 06:40:44 PM Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> This thread goes in endless circles, round and round and round.
> In the last 20 posts or so is not one new argument pro or con can be
> found, both sides only repeating their pov over and over again.
>
> Nothing will be achiev
On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:37:14 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:10:40 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> No, by "you know what needs to be done" I mean: code. Contribute.
> >> Become a developer. Make sh
On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:30:03 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer
> >>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > If g
William Kenworthy wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 14:55 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Who actually speaks on the list. As far as we know, maybe the only
Gentoo users disagreeing with the changes are the ones saying so on
the list. We don't know.
ok, as one of the silent ones on this topic so
On Thursday 15 September 2011 00:43:08 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:37:38 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > If I can't even be trusted to write English correctly, which is my
> > > day job, you certainly don't want to see my code ;-)
> >
> > I used to think Linux Format needed a
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:37:38 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > If I can't even be trusted to write English correctly, which is my day
> > job, you certainly don't want to see my code ;-)
>
> I used to think Linux Format needed a sub-editor. Now I know they have
> a pretty good one!
r u dissin t
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 14:55 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
