[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Replacing systemd in Jessie

On Tue 02 Dec 2014 at 16:52:46 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> >On Wed 03 Dec 2014 at 02:27:26 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >
> >>>Do you have a citation for this?
> >>I'm glad you asked.
> >>No - I "presumed" that amongst the "lots" of experts so opposed to the
> >>late-command option, at least one of them would apply Kenshi's patch
> >>(which apparently works) to d-i. Was my mistake an assumption that any
> >>of them would do more than demand? (have any of them even, including
> >>one of the noisier posters on this list who commented in that thread,
> >>done any of the bug-tested he widely requested?)
> >You do us a service by raising this.
> >
> >We are lead to believe there is a huge number of people who want to
> >preseed d-i to have a "clean install". Not one person on -user or -devel
> >has indicated any success with using the patch or given any detail which
> >would allow anyone to follow in their footsteps and test it.
> >
> >Why not? Is it so difficult? Is it beyond the capabilities of a user
> >with technical skills? Looks like half an hour's work to me. Those who
> >have a vested interest in the issue seem reluctant to turn "apparently
> >works" into "does work" or "does not work".
> >
> >Until we get some testing and substantial feedback, using this patch to
> >beat the anti-systemd drum should be seen as noise.
> >
> Well, actually, it does involve a little more than downloading
> debootstrap, applying the patch, and compiling.  One has to build a
> custom copy of d-i to actually make use of it.  That's  bit of a
> complicated procedure.

Why does debootstrap have to be downloaded and a custom copy of d-i
built? Suppose the patch were applied to debootstrap in a running d-i. 
Why wouldn't that be sufficient for testing?

That's a straightforward technical question, incidentally.

>                         Personally, I'd rather wait for the
> installer team to fix a bug that has rather broad implications.

In other words, you'd rather not know whether the patch works (whether
the procedure is complicated or not). It cannot be that important to you

> I also seem to recall seeing at least one report of someone who'd
> done the test.

Not what I would call substantial feedback.

Reply to: