From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C208F1381FB for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 529FA21C220; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com (mail-ee0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84AB5E06B0 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id d41so4978827eek.0 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:22:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=194AxL+bCi5Z23wqVC1pvrcugP4ZwPnDuI8W3doF/iI=; b=etxA67kAM6lIWgDN1Ac0CqacDIwKZXt7O+kxST3Fck+oM2B2aVcuTRAW8cp0mt8tlf Dp7gwa9OPlaD6p1aslyKvXxRgRHkuCzyxtnk3hHHBODfGSbfso+DcV5V79rcaAVyVXE8 rOeLhrFUxo1lIdKC7nNkJecSI32bSjXIwDGuge/UNxZ0lizAj7g1DKtuXfLXhP/QC8GJ btJGJv4KKnGGHib7HFY5UJXfPgiGVFxXoqIDv0uu2jlo+dGcErPKTmGVe6OybPmUcfnw 9Xe1m4SIwQR13FbGlmGir5sIrsOqakT1tWUTqbSa3oL+lcrAe0Is+bi91E/qZ+UtfsjT FEiA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.0.71 with SMTP id 47mr78652806eea.19.1356632575172; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:22:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.14.193 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:22:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <394214.69462.bm@smtp149.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com> <87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> <50D85167.9060309@gmail.com> <20121224204817.335033c6@khamul.example.com> <50D8B467.4080100@gmail.com> <20121224230413.GL26547@server> <20121224182907.2bf6d3d6@fuchsia.remarqs.net> <20121225020301.GP26547@server> <50D911A6.6070500@gmail.com> <50DB612F.1030603@gmail.com> <394214.69462.bm@smtp149.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:22:54 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? From: Mark David Dumlao To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 066bf3d8-20ca-4b5f-865b-c4f87207a968 X-Archives-Hash: f1c3649e324ee32f96fadedff8cc4cac On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > Again you don't break the spec unless you have to and you don't change > the spec unless it is an improvement or you have no choice. Non of > which is the case. Just like you do not mould a mail RFC to a > widely used technically inferior hotmail implementation. The spec - or implementation - of / and /usr separation is broken and has been for quite a while now. Nobody here's even bothered answering how the modern Gentoo distro / sysad would survive /usr being out of sync with /, for instance, or the fact that some udev programs tend to be located in /usr, or even just a solid detailed specification on the precise criteria for inclusion into /. Even the FHS is mum on all the extra crap we randomly decide between / and /usr to land in. You'd think, for instance, something as clear cut as filesystem manipulation tools, e.g., xfs_admin, would belong in /sbin rather than /usr/sbin. But no it's not. Or - for crying out loud, at least a text editor that isn't ed. Again, the broken state of the / and /usr split is a different thing from the usefulness state of your own already installed distro. TLDR: The spec is broken. > >> He's like DJB on crack. > > Except DJB made every Linux system on this planet more reliable simple > and secure through better coding practices and pointing out how buggy > sendmail was. Lennart if anything will accomplish the exact opposite > where systemd is used. If you have something more than FUD to back up your technical claims, go ahead. You're directly claiming that wherever systemd is used, the system will be less reliable and secure, and that Lennart isn't pointing out buggy behaviors in - what's the analogue for sendmail? oh yeah - SysVInit scripts. To carry the analogy, DJB's main point was that the size of the code was one of - if not the - most important factors in increasing code quality and security, and worked to make qmail and its configuration about as spartan as you can get. That's kind of the point of systemd unit files, trimming the boilerplate size to reduce gotchas like init scripts failing to detect whether a service is running or not, or if its dependencies have been started. -- This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none