Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Why am I forced to install systemd????
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv wrote:
it is not true that you have to start services you do not need or to use tricks to avoid mounting /tmp to RAM.


This sound like you are from other planet or living in different time. Watch up! Open google and see how many people ask how to prevent /tmp from mounting to RAM.
The main problem for me as for many other people is exactly that systemd is doing something you don't have under your control! In open-rc all services are specified in the certain run level even if it made by default during installation.
And that is not true for systemd. There is NO service tmpfs. You have to mask it to prevent it to start. It is NOT proper way to handle service manager.
Just call systemctl and see how many services are started you have never asked for and none of them are in any list you can remove from. It doesn't matter for server machine, but it does matter for laptop.
I can't make my hard drive idle because stupid log is writing there something. And there is no way to disable log service. The system won't boot without it.

I can't believe you are not able to see it! May be you don't want to.

mv wrote:
What is really broken with systemd is the crazyness to run daemons for every small task permanently, the fact that it is orthogonal to existing system tools - doing things like mounting, setting of time and locales in its own broken way - and of course the logging insanity. Also essential things like networking are not reasonable implemented (the user-provided netctl does not work properly), so it is not a complete system and what it does, does it in a bad or broken way. However, the two points you mentioned above are not part of the brokennes IMHO.


Besides the services systemd want to start by itself everything else is the same like in any other init system.
I can't call it broken way, just because it works. Well I am stunning about remounting mounted drive with it's own option, but that is part of the same systemd ideology I hate - "I know better what you need".

Well the part of networking where systemd makes it own network devices by changing their names I can't follow too.
If that is what you mean. But again it works - network is functional and that is what most people need.
My problem is Networkmanager, but it's not a part of systemd and I can't blame systemd for that.

At the very end, what ever services systemd is starting it has to provide open framework for anyone who wants
adjust it for his needs. And exactly that is not possible. I just have a hope, that some one will fork it and change
all built-in features with clean list of available services which admin can manipulate as much as he wants.

Why I like open-rc is because I can disable many services which by mistake considered as necessary to run the system
and open-rc doesn't brake the boot process. And the boot time is shorter than with systemd. Therefore I don't trust
Sabayon developers who said they moved to systemd to make boot faster. It's a lie.

But the main point of this thread is different. Main point is - please leave people to decide what they need
and don't push them to use something they don't have to. This tendency is taking more and more place at Gentoo.
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Why am I forced to install systemd???? Reply with quote

mv wrote:

You cannot compile at least two packages, one being the rather trivial sandbox.
Things might work without sandbox, but the slightest bug in some build system might damage your system. Your inability to compile sandbox might even come from such a bug.


I have explained about the first one.
The problem with sandbox is following:

Code:
In file included from ../sandbox-2.6/headers.h:137:0:
/usr/include/linux/ptrace.h:58:8: error: redefinition of ‘struct ptrace_peeksiginfo_args’
 struct ptrace_peeksiginfo_args {
        ^
In file included from ../sandbox-2.6/headers.h:105:0:
/usr/include/sys/ptrace.h:191:8: note: originally defined here
 struct ptrace_peeksiginfo_args
        ^
make: *** [headers.h.gch] Error 1


This I will consider as a BUG in sandbox rather than anything else!
Sandbox developers have to make a choice which header file they want to include.
To my understanding it is an obvious mistake.
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4161
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Forced" is a strong word when it comes to Gentoo. There are very very few things that Gentoo forces on you (bash and python are two and even then they can just sit on your system not being used EXCEPT for installing)

Some upgrading package has now put a requirement on SysD (eg gnome-3.8 onwards ). Now whether you accept that is up to you.
Find out exactly what is pulling it in and make a decision.

For me it was GNOME so I just removed GNOME
then it was cinnamon (since they still rely on GNOME) so cinnamon left - back to openbox which I was actually starting to miss
moved over to eudev and not looked back since.
_________________
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. Where men have the habit of liberty, the Press will continue to be the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
This sound like you are from other planet or living in different time. Watch up! Open google and see how many people ask how to prevent /tmp from mounting to RAM.

Open google and see how many people claim that nobody was ever on the moon. What do you want to prove? That many people are not able to read (and understand) the systemd documentation?
Quote:
The main problem for me as for many other people is exactly that systemd is doing something you don't have under your control!

This is true for many things like setting time. But the example you have given is not one of these.
Quote:
There is NO service tmpfs.

It is not called "tmpfs" but "tmp.mount".
Quote:
You have to mask it to prevent it to start. It is NOT proper way to handle service manager.

It is exactly the way described on the systemd manpage to disable default services, and this configuration change can be made with systemctl to achieve exactly the documented effect in the documented way. If you think that using a program exactly as documented on the manpage is not the proper way to handle things, I suggest you turn to a different system than unix.
Quote:
Just call systemctl and see how many services are started you have never asked for and none of them are in any list you can remove from.

Maybe you never read the systemd manpage ...
Quote:
mv wrote:
What is really broken with systemd is the crazyness to run daemons [...] orthogonal to existing system tools ...

Besides the services systemd want to start by itself everything else is the same like in any other init system.

... no, for sure you did not read the systemd manpage if you cannot see the difference to sane init systems. (Except for the broken journaling in which we obviously have the same opinion, but as not reading the manpage you obviously even did not read my post enough to see this but just seem to react on some keywords.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32112
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha,

Put the following in your package mask
Code:
# an over my dead body hard mask
# dump GNOME and anything else that has this as a hard dependency at any version
sys-apps/systemd


Now drop anything that breaks as a result ... just add it here too.
The only thing I'm aware of is gnome>=3.8

It is possible to go back to a static /dev too. No udev, no mdev, no eudev, no systemd, not even any DEVTMPFS in the kernel.
Theres a lot more to it than that. I have a system mostly working with a static /dev

I'm using xfrc4 as a Gnome replacement.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
But again it works - network is functional and that is what most people need.

No, network is not functional - systemd does nothing about networking, you cannot even instruct it for a simple static ethernet setup, because systemd does nothing about it.
Quote:
My problem is Networkmanager, but it's not a part of systemd and I can't blame systemd for that.

I can, because systemd is just lacking part of the most complex and crucial functionality of a startup system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Why am I forced to install systemd???? Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
This I will consider as a BUG in sandbox rather than anything else!
Sandbox developers have to make a choice which header file they want to include.
To my understanding it is an obvious mistake.

Absolutely sure that it must be a mistake of the sandbox developers - clearly an expert like you can judge this, as you can judge for sure that your system is not broken despite such obvious oddness. And of course only an expert like you knows which dependencies are actually needed on your system and why.
Let us see who you are going to blame for the outdated or non-matching-with-your-linux-headers /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h
It is only sure that it cannot be your fault of not reading the documentation and recompiling glibc after linux-headers upgrade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmpogo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2289
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv wrote:

It is exactly the way described on the systemd manpage to disable default services, and this configuration change can be made with systemctl to achieve exactly the documented effect in the documented way. If you think that using a program exactly as documented on the manpage is not the proper way to handle things, I suggest you turn to a different system than unix.


Taking on its own, this definitely is not an argument. You are saying that if something is documented, there is no sense to discuss whether it is proper or not. I beg to differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmpogo wrote:
You are saying that if something is documented, there is no sense to discuss whether it is proper or not. I beg to differ.

Not because it is documented but because this is the (only) way how services are supposed to be switched on/off. You can discuss whether there could be a better way in general but calling switching off a particular service by following this way a "stupid trick" indeed makes no sense. This discussion might make sense if this service were an exception from the rule and you would indeed need a trick to make systemd do what you want in a way it is not supposed to work. There are examples of such things (I mentioned setting of time), but tmp.mount is not an example for this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv wrote:
Not because it is documented but because this is the (only) way how services are supposed to be switched on/off.


Whaaaaaat? Have you ever read systemd documentation by yourself? - I guess not, because otherwise you would remember those commands like: systemctl [enable|disable] service or [start|stop]

So may be before blaiming others you take a coffee and do RTFM... heh?


If that would be possible with every service systemd is starting in default configuration nobody will blame systemd.
Every one will just adjust it for his own need and be happy.
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:


Now drop anything that breaks as a result ... just add it here too.
The only thing I'm aware of is gnome>=3.8


Not only. I have demonstrated, that some packages (x11-misc/notification-daemon-0.7.6) have gtk3 in dependence and gtk3 has many other... dependences.

I am confident that at some day no one will be able to build a minimalistic system without having gtk3 and
systemd installed even if he won't use it. That is happening already now. Just check /usr/lib/systemd
- it is not an empty folder or non existent folder. At least I could not avoid it.

NeddySeagoon wrote:

It is possible to go back to a static /dev too. No udev, no mdev, no eudev, no systemd, not even any DEVTMPFS in the kernel.
Theres a lot more to it than that. I have a system mostly working with a static /dev
I'm using xfrc4 as a Gnome replacement.


Well I agree. It IS possible. I repeat every time, that my system is working witout systemd and many other dependences.
So no doubt, that it's possible. The question is only for what price. That price is too high for me in terms of stupid work I have to do to achieve the result. My dream to push USE flags work for me, but I can't exactly because of strange ideology of developers. And even if some one think I am not qualified to charge it, but also nobody gave me the prove of necessity of those dependences included by default. So I will stay on my own, even if nobody will agree.
The difference in opinions is a good thing. Some one who don't want to imagine that any problem has many solutions
don't even understand it's own solution, he is blaming to be the only valid one.

Talking aside, xfce4 is fine. but not as complete as MATE aka gnome2. But I would rather understand some one who use xfce than gnome3 or kde4-5.
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4161
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gtk3 does not depend on sysd
_________________
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. Where men have the habit of liberty, the Press will continue to be the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
mv wrote:
Not because it is documented but because this is the (only) way how services are supposed to be switched on/off.


Whaaaaaat? Have you ever read systemd documentation by yourself? - I guess not, because otherwise you would remember those commands like: systemctl [enable|disable] service or [start|stop]

So fine, you remembered two of the systemctl commands. If you now have read on the manpage that "disable" is meant for services in the configuration directory (i.e. for those configured or enabled by yourself) and that the "stronger version of disable" is called "mask" you should be able to use systemctl in the supposed way for your task. What was your point? That the name is "mask" instead of "disable-service-from-system's-systemd"?
Or was your point that it is not the only possibility? Your are right, alternatively one could probably also check which system service "Requires" the tmp.mount service, and one could change this dependency.
All this is rather analogous to the behaviour of openrc: If you want to disable/modify a service of openrc which is "need"ed by some system service you have to modify this other service (possibly by a "dummy") or you have to change the dependencies.
Actually, in openrc both is more inconvenient to do since openrc does not distinguish between a "system" and a "configuration" /etc/init.d with the latter overriding the former, so you must take care that your changes are not overridden by the next emerge of openrc; etc-update or similar tools help you with this, but the systemd solution is more convenient in this respect. The analogue to systemd would be to force you to modify /usr/lib/systemd/system (and to put this directory into CONFIG_PROTECT to handle all changes with etc-update).
Summarizing, you pointed out as negative one of the few points where systemd is actually even better than openrc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32112
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha,

/usr/lib/systemd is where systemd keeps its startup scripts. They are installed by any package you install which
a) supports systemd and b) needs to have its statup/shutdown controlled.
This location is the equivelent of openrcs, /etc/init.d/

You do not need to install these scripts. Add
Code:
INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/systemd"
to make.conf to have emerge drop them.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Neddy! I have no packages with systemd use flag and If I use open-rc I can't get why do I need the systemd scripts
to control anything I can't with systemd anyway.

Of course, I can mask some folders or even remove it manually, but is it not the task of ebuild to care about that?
depending on systemd flag? or better on INIT=systemd | openrc variable?

That was my point. Manually I can do everything. What if tomorrow there will be a systemp a new hype for masses?
Yes I am lazy and I want keep it that way. Nevertheless thanks for suggestion.


mv: I can't agree with you. So we better stop the discussion. There is no single reasonable argument from your side on
tmp.mount service. Yes I've forgot its name and miss nothing because of that.

tmp.mount depends on nothing. Nothing depends on tmp.mount.
I see no semi reasonable argument why if someone wants very very very much to put this service by default into the list of standard services to be able disable it in the very sane way.

The main problem with that service is not the way you disable it, BUT that most have no clue that this service is running at all!

As I don't check my flat for scorpions every day, because I am assuming there is none. Because of the same reason I don't check whether any folder has been mounted to the ram. Especially if there is no! such entry in /etc/fstab

Also I was surprised, that my fstab options are ignored and systemd is using it's "best optimized for every one" options.

Why knowing it now should I not assume, that systemd in the new version will run web server by default?
or do something else? Fair enough, that I don't trust to this beast.

The first time I met this service, when my Arch system suddenly became not working because of no reason...
After reboot everything was OK and then after some time - bums error messages, crashes etc...
By some feeling I checked /tmp folder and found it's full - no space left...
I thought - it can be true my / is only 50% full and haven't installed so much last time. Then tadam... /tmp is only
~2G of size. Then I have realized, that it's mounted to tmpfs...
I have checked my /etc/fstab and didn't find anything pointing me to that.

So it was like a miracle - nobody did nothing, but it happened. Systemd config was clean and only forums help
where people were asking how to disable it. There is NO way to disable something you don't have.

Ah... you can mask it!? - Clever idea. And that is why I have masked systemd. And? - It works.

mv, I know you won't agree on that, but then you have very specific, to me, way of seeing things.
May be you do like miracles, magic, fairy tales about computers. I don't. If I eat spicy cucumbers I want to see the word pepper written in the table of content. And if it's not, then I rather consider them faulty and through them away.

One day one guy said - 640k is enough. and those guys are coming and coming...
Why do we need wait another 10 years to laugh about it each time?


P.S. I close this topic. I can't find understanding of my view among people here. Let every one do what they want.
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32112
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha

lefsha wrote:
Thanks Neddy! I have no packages with systemd use flag and If I use open-rc I can't get why do I need the systemd scripts
to control anything I can't with systemd anyway.

Of course, I can mask some folders or even remove it manually, but is it not the task of ebuild to care about that?
depending on systemd flag? or better on INIT=systemd | openrc variable?

That was my point. Manually I can do everything. What if tomorrow there will be a systemp a new hype for masses?
Yes I am lazy and I want keep it that way. Nevertheless thanks for suggestion.


There has been a big debate on the -dev mailing list about these systemd unit files. If you don't have them when you install things they will be missing if you every want to switch to systemd in the future, so if you wish to keep your options open, let these presently unused files accumulate.
If the unit files were USE flag controlled you would need to emerge -e world to get them.

If your opinion of systemd is like mine, systemd users are like turkeys voting for Christmas, then keeping systemd files off your system is fine.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
Nothing depends on tmp.mount.

I checked now: local-fs.target depends on tmp.mount, because there is a symlink in local-fs.target.wants. Thus, alternatively you could probably remove this dependency by making a corresponding dummy symlink in the configuration directory. This is "cleaner" than disabling tmp.mount completely (though I would not do this, since some package might install a module which depends on tmp.mount, in you would not like to execute it in any case).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
systemd users are like turkeys voting for Christmas

:lol:
Though what you say is more correct for gnome with its vertical integration idea which forces systemd. systemd itself fortunately is too low-level yet to force anything. Though I bet Poettering has some plans how to change this in the future, you can currently use systemd without using any of the unhealthy *kit stuff - I did no believe until I tried. Only the opposite is not true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv: If you are considering yourself as a sane man, then you know your words are polemic and not truly correct.
In both cases there is nothing we can discuss anymore. I'm not about to write an article sort of "get the truth about systemd". As Neddy said turkeys have to vote for Christmas if they really wish. People who use systemd either have no clue or they don't care and could use Windows by mistake as well. EOF
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

May be some time later I will start the topic of how much of linux we do really use.
Starting from linux kernel it's getting bigger and bigger every release. But do we really need that
for an ordinary laptop? My version of all built-in linux kernel (no single module) is less than 2MB.
And I need no more. Even that is too much, but could not manage to reduce the size further.
I am very sure the same or even worse is happening with linux libs, which tends to get bigger and less
useful. If one would find time and strip down linux system he will end up with something like the demo diskette (1.4MB)
of QNX system with graphic interface, web browser an editor and several utils.

I am sure every programmer in the world is feeling bad if he hasn't wrote his own string class.
Some need a new init system to feel better. Why not to call a psychologist instead?
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32112
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha,

That made me smile.

If you have some time, a spare partition and a long memory give Old Fashioned Gentoo a go. That guide is far from complete.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
creaker
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
May be some time later I will start the topic of how much of linux we do really use.

Not too much unfortunately


lefsha wrote:
I am sure every programmer in the world is feeling bad if he hasn't wrote his own string class.
Some need a new init system to feel better. Why not to call a psychologist instead?

It is self-delusion of grandeur

Open source ceases to be open. Nominally, it is open, but it is so complicated and confusing that it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how and what this code does. In fact we get "open source", that is closed for understanding.
The thing is the people do not want to understand what and for what they installs at their boxes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
mv: If you are considering yourself as a sane man, then you know your words are polemic and not truly correct.
In both cases there is nothing we can discuss anymore. I'm not about to write an article sort of "get the truth about systemd".

If you would have read my words with understanding you would have seen that I consider systemd terribly bad (technically, and politically even more).
But one should argue with what is really bad about systemd and not with false claims as you had done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lefsha
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1012
Location: Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:54 am    Post subject: Re: Why am I forced to install systemd???? Reply with quote

mv wrote:
lefsha wrote:
How can you see, that I have something broken if it works well?

You cannot compile at least two packages, one being the rather trivial sandbox.
Things might work without sandbox, but the slightest bug in some build system might damage your system. Your inability to compile sandbox might even come from such a bug.


Now you can see, that I am right. Sandbox IS broken. So you have no clue what you are talking about.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482752
_________________
Lefsha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4223

PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Re: Why am I forced to install systemd???? Reply with quote

lefsha wrote:
Now you can see, that I am right. Sandbox IS broken.

Now I can see that my conjecture that you have a broken system by your own fault was completely right: glibc has extended its functionality in 2.18, breaking certain backward compatibility. To check problems like these, the glibc-2.18.ebuild has dropped all keywords, but apparently you have installed it anyway, probably even without an idea that this might likely break your system (not to speak about knowledge to correctly locate and fix problems arising from this which you should have if you make such a dangerous experiment on your main system).
Quote:
So you have no clue what you are talking about.

And once more you try to blame other people for your mistakes.

This is probably the last post which I have read from you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum