On May 07, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:

> And kernel+initramfs. That's more than half the boot time (without
> even CONCURRENCY=makefile) here.
I am still waiting for an answer from the kernel/initramfs-tools
maintainer about moving udevsettle from init-top to premount.

--
ciao,
Marco

On May 07, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:

> > - a decision to drop kfreebsd as a release architecture
> Since 1 and 2 aren't happening, I think we should consider going with
> the third option.
Me too, I believe that the people interested in kfreebsd-* have had more
than enough time to provide the compatibility framework and we cannot
hold back Debian forever for the benefit of a toy port.

OTOH, it is not obvious to me anymore that Debian should commit to
Upstart now that systemd has appeared and it has many compelling
features. I believe we should consider systemd's merits and wait and see
how it will work in the next Fedora release and if SUSE will really
adopt it.
This still does not preclude switching from sysvinit to Upstart, it only
means that maintainers should not convert their init scripts to Upstart
jobs (and it would also allow releasing the kfreebsd-* ports).

Removing the Essential flag from sysvinit would allow interested admins
to install upstart on their systems if they want to benefit from its
features. I am not sure how much useful it would be to also switch to
upstart by default in this scenario, I welcome other opinions.

--
ciao,
Marco

On May 09, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:

> I've just read a few days ago the design document of systemd; AFAIU it
> requires anyhow patching various daemons, no matter how trivial the
> patches are.
Patching the daemons is needed if you want it to open the listening
sockets for them. If you do not, it still works (without its most
interesting feature).

--
ciao,
Marco

On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:01:09AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 07:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should do a poll to collect
> > information on how testers experience their boot with
> > CONCURRENCY=makefile, to make it easier to switch with some confidence
> > that it would work for most users.
>
> Now you're talking!

Or we could do like with the net.ipv6.bindv6only setting, and just
change it and then ignore all complaints.


Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100509133739.GD24473@test5.acc.umu.se">http://lists.debian.org/20100509133739.GD24473@test5.acc.umu.se

#include <hallo.h>
* Cesare Leonardi [Sun, May 09 2010, 12:26:36PM]:

> Here what i've measured, from the Grub start to the Gdm prompt, in
> either case starting from a completely power off machine:
> Without concurrency: 33 sec.
> With concurrency (try 1): 29 sec.
> With concurrency (try 2): 31 sec.

Similar results here:
without concurency: 35s
with concurency: 30s
with concurency and without readahead: 28s

Not that much difference, IMHO.

Regards,
Eduard.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100509155443.GA4881@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de">http://lists.debian.org/20100509155443.GA4881@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de

#include <hallo.h>
* Raphael Geissert [Sun, May 09 2010, 01:19:31PM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > with concurency: 30s
> > with concurency and without readahead: 28s
>
> Interesting, a regression. Is that readahead from readahead-fedora?
>
> Were the 30 seconds measured by following the instructions from
> /usr/share/doc/readahead-fedora/README.bootchart ?

First, it was readahead-fedora. Second, I followed that README now and
updated readahead collection. Now they take both about 29 seconds, so I
don't win anything with readahead.

Regards,
Eduard.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100510212117.GA4702@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de">http://lists.debian.org/20100510212117.GA4702@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:57:56PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Was this request ever actually made to the kfreebsd porters? I'm not sure
> > that it was, in which case it's rather unfair to say that they've had enough
> > time when they were never informed this was a pressing issue.
>
> One request was done last summer, see
> <URL: http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2009/07/msg00117.html >.

If I were a kfreebsd porter I'd interpret that as "would anyone like
to help port upstart?" rather than "we're going to shove upstart down
your throat, comply or else."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100516141857.GA8693@scru.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100516141857.GA8693@scru.org