Will need to have something like Linux' cgroups. Introduction: Ressourcen-Verwaltung mit Control Groups (cgroups) (german), Daniel Gollub, Stefan Seyfried, 2010-10-14.

Likely there's also some other porting needed.


This also captures discussion about other init systems, not only systemd. Also note the additional upstart page.

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2011-05-19

<pinotree> pochu: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.desktop - the
  "systemd as dependency" and all the messages in it don't give me a bright
  future for gnome on hurd...
<pochu> yeah, I've read the thread
<pochu> it's only a proposal so far... hopefully it'll be rejected, or they
  will only accept the interfaces that other OSes can implement...
<pochu> we'll see
<pinotree> you can always help me with kde on hurd, would be nice ;)
<pochu> hehe
<pinotree> pochu: well, even if the depenency is rejected, the whole «don't
  give a damn about non-linux and only bless linux for the "gnome os"» is a
  bit... worrying attitude
<pochu> yeah... it doesn't come from all the community though
<pochu> I'm sure some people have always thought that way
<tschwinge> Or we could get systemd going?  :-)
<pochu> good luck with that :p
<guillem> tschwinge: haha!? :)
<tschwinge> That bad?
<guillem> tschwinge: if you mean by that forking indefinitely then maybe
<guillem> tschwinge: upstream has expressely stated multiple times, no
  interest whatsoever in any kind of portability to anything non-Linux
<guillem> or even older Linux versions!
<guillem> to the point of rejecting patches, because they "clutter" the
  source code...
<tschwinge> Well, then let's ``just'' implement the Linux interfaces.  :-)
<guillem> tschwinge: then you'll be always playing catch up
<guillem> tschwinge: for example several of the Linux-only things upstream
  makes heavy use of, are pretty recent Linux-only additions to the kernel,
  but equivalents have been present on FreeBSD for years
<tschwinge> Yeah.  I'm half-serious, half-joking.
<tschwinge> I haven't looked at the systemd code at all.
  for a list of its dependencies
<guillem> some are just glibc extensions though
<guillem> and some are IMO optional and should be conditionalized, but...
<guillem> pochu: I don't think that attitude is that old, there was a time
  when Linux was not used widely, or even that functional, I think it has
  been taking strength since the Linux Plumbers Cartel started :)
<guillem> as in one thing is not caring about anything non-Linux, the other
  is outright rejecting portability fixes
<guillem> tschwinge: in any case, these "recent" events are "pissing me
  off" to the point of having considered several times implementing
  portable replacements for some of those Utopia projects, the problem as
  always is time though :)
<guillem> tschwinge: and the issue is not only with systemd, upstart's
  upstream has the same approach to portability, if you want to port it,
  you'll have to maintain a fork
<pochu> let's create our own init system, make it better than anyone else,
  and when people start switching to it, let's start using hurd-only APIs
<tschwinge> We already had someone work on that.  Like ten years ago.  DMD.
  Daemon Managing Daemons.  <http://directory.fsf.org/project/DMD/>
<guillem> the real problem with that attitude is not the lack of care for
  portabilty, the real problem is that these people are pushing for their
  stuff all over the stack, and most of the time deprecating their own
  stuff after a while when they have rewritten it from scratch, leaving the
  burden of maintaining the old stuff to the other ports
<guillem> witness HAL, ConsoleKit, etc etc
<guillem> (anyway enough ranting I guess :)
<tschwinge> Yeah, it's true, though.
<pochu> agreed

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-01-18

<braunr> systemd relies on linux specific stuff that is difficult to
<braunr> notably cgroups to isolate the deamons it starts so it knows when
  they stopped regardless of their pid
<braunr> just assume you can't use systemd on anything else than linux

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-12

<azeem> huh, Lennert Poettering just mentioned the Hurd in his systmd talk
<azeem> well, in the context of you IPC in Unix sucks and kdbus
<azeem> s/you/how/
<pinotree> QED
<pinotree> what did you expect? :)
<azeem> I didn't quite get it, but he seemed to imply the Hurd was a step
  in the right direction over Unix
<azeem> (which is obvious, but it wasn't obvious he had that opinion)

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-13

<azeem> so cgroups seems to be most prominent thing the systemd people
  think the Hurd lacks
<tschwinge> azeem: In 2010, I came to the same conclusion,
  <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html>.  ;-)
<azeem> heh
<tschwinge> I don't think of any show-stopper for implementing that -- just
  someone to do it.
<youpi> azeem: which part of cgroups, like being able to kill a cgroup?
<youpi> it shouldn't be very hard to implement what systemd needs
<azeem> probably also the resource allocation etc.
<azeem> the questions are I guess (i) do the cgroups semantics make sense
  from our POV and/or do we accept that cgroups is the "standard" now and
  (ii) should systemd require concrete implementations or just the concept
  in a more abstract sense
<teythoon> being the first non Linux OS that runs systemd would be a nice
  showcase of Hurds flexibility
<azeem> maybe upstart is less trouble
<pinotree> azeem: possibly
<azeem> teythoon: can you just include upstart in your GSOC? kthxbye
<pinotree> at least libnih (the library with base utilities and such used
  by upstart) required a working file monitor (and the current
  implementation kind of exposes a fd) and certain semantics for waitid
<pinotree> libnih/upstart have "just" the issue of being under CLA...
<azeem> pinotree: yeah, true
<azeem> I suggested "startup" as a name for a fork
<pinotree> imho there would be no strict need to fork
<teythoon> azeem: but upstart is a lot less interesting. last time I used
  it it wasn't even possible to disable services in a clean way
<pochu> pinotree: is that still so now that Scott works for google?
<pinotree> pochu: yeah, since it's a Canonical CLA, not rally something
  tied to a person
<pinotree> (iirc)
<pochu> sure, but scott is the maintainer...
<pochu> shrug
<azeem> nah, scott left upstart
<azeem> AFAIK
<azeem> at least James Hunt gave a talk earlier with Steve Langasek and
  introduced himself as the upstart maintainer
<azeem> also I heard in the hallway track that the upstart people are
  somewhat interested in BSD/Hurd support as they see it as a selling point
  against systemd
<pinotree> pochu: it's just like FSF CLA for GNU projects: even if the
  maintainers/contributors change altogether, copyright assignment is still
<azeem> but their accents were kinda annoying/hard to follow so I didn't
  follow their talk closesly to see whether they brought it up
<azeem> pinotree: well, it's not
<pochu> azeem: looking at https://code.launchpad.net/libnih, I'm not sure
  libnih has a maintainer anymore...
<azeem> pinotree: first off, you're not signing over the copyright with
  their CLA, just giving them the right to relicense
<azeem> pinotree: but more importantaly, the FSF announced in a legally
  binding way that they will not take things non-free 
<azeem> anyway, I'll talk to the upstart guys about libnih

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-15

<azeem> btw, I talked to vorlon about upstart and the Hurd
<azeem> so the situation with libnih is that it is basically
  feature-complete, but still maintained by Scott
<azeem> upstart is leveraging it heavily
<azeem> and Scott was (back in the days) against patches for porting
<azeem> for upstart proper, Steve said he would happily take porting

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-11-28

<azeem> teythoon: did you see they got libnih ported to kfreebsd?
<azeem> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/11/msg00395.html
<azeem> "I haven't started looking into Hurd yet," sounds promising
<teythoon> saw that
<teythoon> i looked at libnih too
<teythoon> wrote a mail about that

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-26

< youpi> teythoon: I tend to agree with mbanck
< youpi> although another thing worth considering would be adding something
  similar to control groups
< youpi> AIUI, it's one of the features that systemd really requires
< braunr> uhg, cgroups already
< braunr> youpi: where is that discussion ?
< youpi> it was a private mail
< braunr> oh ok
< teythoon> right, so about upstart
< teythoon> to be blunt, I do not like upstart, though my experience with
  it is limited and outdated
< braunr> that was quick :)
< braunr> i assume this follows your private discussion with youpi and
  mbank ?
< teythoon> I used it on a like three years old ubuntu and back then it
  couldn't do stufft hat even sysvinit could do
< teythoon> there was not much discussion, mbank suggested that I could
  work on upstart
< teythoon> b/c it might be easier to support than systemd
< teythoon> which might be very well true, then again what's the benefit of
  having upstart? I'm really curious, I should perhaps read up on its
< pinotree> event-based, etc
< youpi> it is also about avoiding being pushed out just because we don't
  support it?
< teythoon> yes, but otoh systemd can do amazing things, the featurelist of
  upstart reads rather mondane in comparison
< youpi> I don't really have an opinion over either, apart from portability
  of the code
< braunr> teythoon: the system requirements for systemd would take much
  time to implement in comparison to what we already have
< braunr> i still have maksym's work on last year gsoc on my list
< braunr> waiting to push in the various libpager related patches first
< teythoon> so you guys think it's worthwile to port upstart?
< braunr> no idea
< braunr> teythoon: on another subject
< azeem_> teythoon: I like systemd more, but the hallway track at Debconf
  seemed to imply most people like Upstart better except for the CLA
< azeem_> which I totally forgot to address
< youpi> CLA ?
< azeem_> contributor license agreement
< braunr> since you've now done very good progress, is your work available
  in the form of ready-to-test debian packages ?
< teythoon> braunr: it is
< teythoon> braunr: http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/gsoc/heap/debian/
< braunr> i remember urls in some of your mails
< braunr> ah thanks
< braunr> "cryptobitch" hum :)
< azeem_> in any case, everbody assumed either Upstart or Systemd are way
  ahead of systemvinit
< braunr> sysvinit is really ancient :)
< azeem_> apart from the non-event-driven fundamental issue, a lot of
  people critized that the failure rate at writing correct init-scripts
  appears to be too high
< azeem_> one of the questions brought up was whether it makes sense to
  continue to ship/support systemvinit once a switch is made to
  systemd/upstart for the Linux archs
< azeem_> systemvinit scripts might bitrot
< azeem_> but anyway, I don't see a switch happen anytime soon
< teythoon> well, did upstart gain the capability of disabling a service
< azeem_> teythoon: no idea, but apparently:
< teythoon> azeem_: then there is hope yet ;)
< azeem_> the main selling point of Upstart is that it shipped in several
  LTS releases and is proven technology (and honestly, I don't read a lot
  of complaints online about it)
< azeem_> (I don't agree that SystemD is unproven, but that is what the
  Upstart guys implied)
< teythoon> am I the only one that thinks that upstart is rather
 * azeem_ doesn't have an opinion on it
< azeem> teythoon:
  http://penta.debconf.org/dc13_schedule/events/1027.en.html has slides and
  the video
< azeem> teythoon: eh, appears the link to the slides is broken, but they
  are here:
< braunr> teythoon: actually, from the presentation, i'd tend to like
< braunr> dependency, parallelism and even runlevel compatibility flows
  naturally from the event based model
< braunr> sysv compatibility is a great feature
< braunr> it does look simple
< braunr> i admit it's "unimpressive" but do we want an overkill init
  system ?
< braunr> teythoon: what makes you not like it ?
< azeem> Lennart critized that upstart doesn't generate events, just
  listens to them
< azeem> (which is a feature, not a bug to some)
< braunr> azeem: ah yes, that could be a lack
< azeem> braunr: http://penta.debconf.org/dc13_schedule/events/983.en.html
  was the corresponding SystemD talk by Lennart, though he hasn't posted
  slides yet I think
< teythoon> braunr: well, last time I used it it was impossible to cleanly
  disable a service
< teythoon> also ubuntu makes such big claims about software they develop,
  and when you read up on them it turns out that most of the advertised
  functionality will be implemented in the near future
< teythoon> then they ship software as early as possible only to say later
  that is has proven itself for so many years
< teythoon> and tbh I hate to be the one that helped port upstart to hurd
  (and maybe kfreebsd as a byproduct) and later debian choses upstart over
  systemd b/c it is available for all debian kernels
< kilobug> teythoon: ubuntu has a tendency to ship software too early when
  it's not fully mature/stable, but that doesn't say anything about the
  software itself
< pinotree> teythoon: note the same is sometimes done on fedora for young
  technologies (eg systemd)
< azeem> teythoon: heh, fair enough
< p2-mate> braunr: I would prefer if my init doesn't use ptrace :P
< teythoon> p2-mate: does upstart use ptrace?
< p2-mate> teythoon: yes
< teythoon> well, then I guess there won't be an upstart for Hurd for some
  time, no?
< kilobug> p2-mate: why does it use ptrace for ?
< p2-mate> kilobug: to find out if a daemon forked 
< kilobug> hum I see
< azeem> p2-mate: the question is whether there's a Hurdish way to
  accomplish the same
< p2-mate>
< p2-mate> see job_process_trace_new  :)
< kilobug> azeem: it doesn't seem too complicated to me to have a way to
  get proc notify upstart of forks
< p2-mate> azeem: that's a good question. there is a linuxish way to do
  that using cgroups
< azeem> right, there's a blueprint suggesting cgroups for Upstart here:
< teythoon> yes, someone should create a init system that uses cgroups for
  tracking child processes >,<
< teythoon> kilobug: not sure it is that easy. who enforces that proc_child
  is used for a new process? isn't it possible to just create a new mach
  task that has no ties to the parent process?
< teythoon> azeem: what do you mean by "upstart does not generate events"?
  there are "emits X" lines in upstart service descrpitions, surely that
  generates event X?
< azeem> I think the critique is that this (and those upstart-foo-bridges)
  are bolted on, while SystemD just takes over your systems and "knows"
  about them first-hand
< azeem> but as I said, I'm not the expert on this
< teythoon> uh, in order to install upstart one has to remove sysvinit
  ("yes i am sure...") and it fails to bring up the network on booting the
< teythoon> also, both systemd and upstart depend on dbus, so no cookie for
  us unless that is fixed first, right?
< pinotree> true
< teythoon> well, what do you want me to do for the next four weeks?
< youpi> ideally you could make both upstart and systemd work on hurd-i"86
< pinotree> both in 4 weeks?
< youpi> so hurd-i386 doesn't become the nasty guy that makes people tend
  for one or the other
< youpi> I said "ideally"
< youpi> I don't really have any idea how much work is required by either
  of the two
< youpi> I'd tend to think the important thing to implement is something
  similar to control groups, so both upstart (which is supposed to use them
  someday) and systemd can be happy about it
< teythoon> looks like upstarts functionality depending on ptrace is not
  required, but can be enabled on a per service base
< teythoon> so a upstart port that just lacks this might be possible
< teythoon> youpi: the main feature of cgroups is that a process cannot
  escape its group, no? i'm not sure how this could be implemented atop of
  mach in a secure and robust way
< teythoon> b/c any process can just create mach tasks
< youpi> maybe we need to add a feature in mach itself, yes
< teythoon> ok, implementing cgroups sounds fun, I could do that
< youpi> azeem: are you ok with that direction?
< azeem> well, in general yes; however, AIUI, cgroups is being redesigned
  upstream, no?
< youpi> that's why I said "something like cgroups"
< azeem> ah, ok
< youpi> we can do something simple enough to avoid design quesetions, and
  that would still be enough for upstart & systemd
< azeem>
< braunr> p2-mate: upstart uses ptrace ?
< p2-mate> yes
< youpi> teythoon: and making a real survey of what needs to be fixed for
  upstart & systemd
< p2-mate> see my link posted earlier
< braunr> ah already answered
< braunr> grmbl
< braunr> it's a simple alternative to cgroups though
< braunr> teythoon: dbus isn't a proble
< braunr> problem
< braunr> it's not that hard to fix
< youpi> well, it hasn't been fixed for a long time now :)
< braunr> we're being slow, that's all
< braunr> and interested by other things
< gg0> 12:58 < teythoon> btw, who is this heroxbd fellow and why has he
  suddenly taken interest in so many debian gsoc projects?
< gg0> http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/05/msg00133.html
< gg0> i notice nobody mentioned openrc
< pinotree> he's the debian student working on integrating openrc
< gg0> pinotree: no, the student is Bill Wang, Benda as he says is a
< pinotree> whatever, it's still the openrc gsoc
< azeem> well, they wanted to look at it WRT the Hurd, did they follow-up
  on this?
< gg0> btw wouldn't having openrc on hurd be interesting too?
< pinotree> imho not really
< gg0> no idea whether Bill is also trying to figure out what to do,
  probably not
< azeem> somebody could ping that thread you mentioned above to see whether
  they looked at the Hurd and/or need help/advice
< gg0> azeem: yeah somebody who could provide such help/advice. like.. you?
  for instance
 * gg0 can just paste urls
< azeem> they should just follow-up on-list

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-28

<teythoon> anyone knows a user of cgroups that is not systemd? so far I
  found libcg, that looks like a promising first target to port first,
  though not surprisingly it is also somewhat linux specific
<taylanub> teythoon: OpenRC optionally uses cgroups IIRC.
<taylanub> Not mandatory because unlike systemd it actually tries (at all)
  to be portable.

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-02

<teythoon> braunr: I plan to patch gnumach so that the mach tasks keep a
  reference to the task that created them and to make that information
<teythoon> braunr: is such a change acceptable?
<braunr> teythoon: what for ?
<teythoon> braunr: well, the parent relation is currently only implemented
  in the Hurd, but w/o this information tracked by the kernel I don't see
  how I can prevent malicious/misbehaving applications to break out of
<teythoon> also I think this will enable us to fix the issue with tracking
  which tasks belong to which subhurd in the long term
<braunr> ah cgroups
<braunr> yes cgroups should partly be implemented in the kernel ...
<braunr> teythoon: that doesn't surprise me
<braunr> i mean, i think it's ok
<braunr> the kernel should implement tasks and threads as closely as the
  hurd (or a unix-like system) needs it
<teythoon> braunr: ok, cool
<teythoon> braunr: I made some rather small and straight forward changes to
  gnumach, but it isn't doing what I thought it would do :/
<teythoon> braunr: http://paste.debian.net/33717/
<braunr> you added a field to task_basic_info
<braunr> thereby breaking the ABI
<teythoon> braunr: my small test program says: my task port is 1(pid 13)
  created by task -527895648; my parent task is 31(pid 1)
<teythoon> braunr: no, it is not. I appended a field and these structures
  are designed to be extendable
<braunr> hm
<braunr> ok
<braunr> although i'm not so sure
<braunr> there are macros defining the info size, depending on what you ask
<braunr> you may as well get garbage
<braunr> have you checked that ?
<teythoon> i initialized my struct to zero before calling mach
<braunr> teythoon: can you put some hardcoded value, just to make sure data
  is correctly exported ?
<teythoon> braunr: right, good idea
<teythoon> braunr: my task port is 1(pid 13) created by task 3; my parent
  task is 31(pid 1) -- so yes, hardcoding 3 works
<braunr> ok
<teythoon> braunr: also I gathered evidence that the convert_task_to_port
  thing works, b/c first I did not have the task_reference call just before
  that so the reference count was lowered (convert... consumes a reference)
  and the parent task was destroyed
<teythoon> braunr: I must admit I'm a little lost. I tried to return a
  reference to task rather than task->parent_task, but that didn't work
<teythoon> braunr: I feel like I'm missing something here
<teythoon> maybe I should get aquainted with the kernel debugger
<teythoon> err, the kernel debugger is not accepting any symbol names, even
  though the binary is not stripped o_O
<teythoon> err, neither the kdb nor gdb attached to qemu translates
  addresses to symbols, gdb at least translates symbols to addresses when
  setting break points
<teythoon> how did anyone ever debug a kernel problem under these
<braunr> teythoon: i'll have a look at it when i have some time

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-03

<teythoon> :/ I believe the startup_notify interface is ill designed... an
  translator can defer the system shutdown indefinitely
<braunr> it can
<teythoon> that's bad
<braunr> yes
<braunr> the hurd has a general tendency to trust its "no mutual trust
  required" principle
<braunr> to rely on it a bit too much
<teythoon> well, at least it's a privileged operation to request this kind
  of notification, no?
<braunr> why ?
<braunr> teythoon: it normally is used mostly by privileged servers
<braunr> but i don't think there is any check on the recipient
<teythoon> braunr: b/c getting the port to /hurd/init is done via
<braunr> teythoon: ?
<teythoon> braunr: well, in order to get the notifications one needs the
  msgport of /hurd/init and getting that requires root privileges
<braunr> teythoon: oh ok then
<braunr> teythoon: what's bad with it then ?
<teythoon> braunr: even if those translators are somewhat trusted, they can
  (and do) contain bugs and stall the shutdown
<teythoon> I think this even happened to me once, I think it was the pfinet
<braunr> teythoon: how do you want it to behave instead ?
<teythoon> braunr: well, /hurd/init notifies the processes sequentially,
  that seems suboptimal, better to send async notifications to all of them
  and then to collect all the answers
<teythoon> braunr: if one fails to answer within a rather large time frame
  (say 5 minutes) shutdown anyway
<braunr> i agree with async notifications but
<braunr> i don't agree with the timeout
<teythoon> for reference, a (voluntary) timeout of 1 minute is hardcoded in
<braunr> the timeout should be a parameter
<braunr> it's common on large machines to have looong shutdown delays
<teythoon> of the notification?
<braunr> the answer means "ok i'm done you can shutdown"
<braunr> well this can take long
<braunr> most often, administrators simply prefer to trust their program is
  ok and won't take longer than it needs to, even if it's long
<teythoon> and not answering at all causes the shutdown / reboot to fail
  making the system hang
<braunr> i know
<teythoon> in a state where it is not easily reached if you do not have
  access to it
<braunr> but since it only concerns essential servers, it should befine
<braunr> essential servers are expected to behave well
<teythoon> it concerns servers that have requested a shutdown notification
<braunr> ok so no essential but system servers
<teythoon> essential servers are only exec, proc, /
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> the same applies
<pinotree> init and auth too, no?
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> you expect root not to hang himself
<teythoon> I do expect all software to contain bugs
<braunr> yes but you also expect them to provide a minimum level of
<braunr> otherwise you can just throw it all away
<teythoon> no, not really
<braunr> well
<teythoon> I know, that's my dilemma basically ;)
<braunr> if you don't trust your file system, you make frequent backups
<braunr> if you don't trust your shutdown code, you're ready to pull the
  plug manually
<braunr> (or set a watchdog or whatever)
<braunr> what i mean is
<braunr> we should NEVER interfere with a program that is actually doing
  its job just because it seems too long
<braunr> timeouts are almost never the best solution
<braunr> they're used only when necessary
<braunr> e.g. across networks
<braunr> it's much much much worse to interrupt a proper shutdown process
  because it "seems too long" than just trust it behaves well 99999%%%% of
  the time
<braunr> in particular because this case deals with proper data flushing,
  which is an extremely important use case
<teythoon> it's hard/theoretically impossible to distinguish between taking
  long and doing nothing
<braunr> it's impossible
<braunr> agreed
<braunr> => trust
<braunr> if you don't trust, you run real time stuff
<braunr> and you don't flush data on disk
<teythoon> ^^
<braunr> (which makes a lot of computer uses impossible as well)
<teythoon> there are only 2 people I trust, and the other one is not
<braunr> if this shutdown procedure is confined to the TCB, it's fine to
  trust it goes well
<teythoon> tcb?
<braunr> trusted computing base
<braunr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing_base
* teythoon shudders
<teythoon> "trust" is used way to much these days
<teythoon> and I do not like the linux 2.0 ip stack to be part of our TCB
<braunr> basically, on a multiserver system like the hurd, the tcb is every
  server on the path to getting a service done from a client
<braunr> then make it not request to be notified
<braunr> or make two classes of notifications
<braunr> because unprivileged file systems should be notified too
<teythoon> indeed
<teythoon> by the way, we should have a hurdish libnotify or something for
  this kind of notifications
<braunr> but in any case, it should really be policy
<braunr> we should ... :)
<teythoon> ^^

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-04

<teythoon> braunr: btw, I now believe that no server that requested
  shutdown notifications can stall the shutdown for more than 1 minute
  *unless* its message queue is full
<teythoon> so any fs should better sync within that timeframe
<braunr> where is this 1 min defined ?
<teythoon> init/init.c search for 60000
<braunr> ew
<teythoon> did I just find the fs corruption bug everyone was looking for?
<braunr> no
<braunr> what corruption bug ?
<teythoon> not sure, I thought there was still some issues left with
  unclean filesystems every now and then
<teythoon> *causing
<braunr> yes but we know the reasons
<teythoon> ah
<braunr> involving some of the funniest names i've seen in computer
  terminology :
<braunr> writeback causing "message floods", which in turn create "thread
  storms" in the servers receiving them
<teythoon> ^^ it's usually the other way around, storms causing floods >,,
<braunr> teythoon: :)
<braunr> let's say it's a bottom-up approach
<teythoon> then the fix is easy, compile mach with -DMIGRATING_THREADS :)
<braunr> teythoon: what ?
<teythoon> well, that would solve the flood/storm issue, no?
<braunr> no
<braunr> the real solution is proper throttling
<braunr> which can stem from synchronous rpc (which is the real property we
  want from migrating threads)
<braunr> but the mach writeback interface is async
<braunr> :p

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-05

<braunr> teythoon: oh right, forgot about your port issue
<teythoon> don't worry, I figured by now that this must be a pointer
<teythoon> and I'm probably missing some magic that transforms this into a
  name for the receiver
<teythoon> (though I "found" this function by looking at the mig
  transformation for ports)
<braunr> i was wondering why you called the convert function manually
<braunr> instead of simply returning the task
<braunr> and let mig do the magic
<teythoon> b/c then I would have to add another ipc call, no?
<braunr> let me see the basic info call again
<braunr> my problem with this code is that it doesn't take into account the
  ipc space of the current task
<braunr> which means you probably really return the ipc port
<braunr> the internal kernel address of the struct
<braunr> indeed, ipc_port_t convert_task_to_port(task)
<braunr> i'd personally make a new rpc instead of adding it to basic info
<braunr> basic info doesn't create rights
<braunr> what you want to achieve does
<braunr> you may want to make it a special port
<braunr> i.e. a port created at task creation time
<teythoon> y?
<braunr> it also means you need to handle task destruction and reparent
<teythoon> yes, I thought about that
<braunr> see
<braunr> for now you may simply turn the right into a dead name when the
  parent dies
<braunr> although adding a call and letting mig do it is simpler
<braunr> mig handles reference counting, users just need to task_deallocate
  once done
<teythoon> o_O mig does reference counting of port rights?
<braunr> mig/mach_msg
<teythoon> is there anything it *doesn't* do?
<braunr> i told you, it's a very complicated messaging interface
<braunr> coffee ?
<braunr> fast ?
<teythoon> ^^
<braunr> mig knows about copy_send/move_send/etc...
<braunr> so even if it doesn't do reference counting explicitely, it does
  take care of that
<teythoon> true
<braunr> in addition, the magic conversions are intended to both translate
  names into actual structs, and add a temporary reference at the same time
<braunr> teythoon: everything clear now ? :)
<teythoon> braunr: no, especially not why you suggested to create a special
  port. but this will have to wait for tomorrow ;)

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-06

<vorlon> teythoon: hi there
<vorlon> so I've been following your blog entries about cgroups on
  hurd... very impressive :)
<vorlon> but I think there's a misunderstanding about upstart and
  cgroups... your "conjecture" in
  https://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/posts/what-will-i-do-next-cgroupfs-o/ is
<vorlon> cgroups does not give us the interfaces that upstart uses to
  define service readiness; adding support for cgroups is interesting to
  upstart for purposes of resource partitioning, but there's no way to
  replace ptrace with cgroups for what we're doing
<teythoon> vorlon: hi and thanks for the fish :)
<teythoon> vorlon: what is it exactly that upstart is doing with ptrace
<teythoon> .,oO( your nick makes me suspicious for some reason... ;)
<teythoon> service readiness, what does that mean exactly?
<vorlon> teythoon: so upstart uses ptrace primarily for determining service
  readiness.  The idea is that traditionally, you know an init script is
  "done" when it returns control to the parent process, which happens when
  the service process has backgrounded/daemonized; this happens when the
  parent process exits
<vorlon> in practice, however, many daemons do this badly
<vorlon> so upstart tries to compensate, by not just detecting that the
  parent process has exited, but that the subprocess has exited
<vorlon> (for the case where the upstart job declares 'expect daemon')
<vorlon> cgroups, TTBOMK, will let you ask "what processes are part of this
  group" and possibly even "what process is the leader for this group", but
  doesn't really give you a way to detect "the lead process for this group
  has changed twice"
<vorlon> now, it's *better* in an upstart/systemd world for services to
  *not* daemonize and instead stay running in the foreground, but then
  there's the question of how you know the service is "ready" before moving
  on to starting other services that depend on it
<vorlon> systemd's answer to this is socket-based activation, which we
  don't really endorse for upstart for a variety of reasons
<teythoon> hm, okay
<teythoon> so upstart does this only if expect daemon is declared in the
  service description?
<vorlon> (in part because I've seen security issues when playing with the
  systemd implementation on Fedora, which Lennart assures me are
  corner-cases specific to cups, but I haven't had a chance to test yet
  whether he's right)
<teythoon> and it is not used to track children, but only to observe the
  daemonizing process?
<vorlon> yes
<teythoon> and it then detaches from the processes?
<vorlon> yes
<vorlon> once it knows the service is "ready", upstart doesn't care about
  tracking it; it'll receive SIGCHLD when the lead process dies, and that's
  all it needs to know
<teythoon> ok, so I misunderstood the purpose of the ptracing, thanks for
  clarifying this
<vorlon> my pleasure :)
<vorlon> I realize that doesn't really help with the problem of hurd not
  having ptrace
<teythoon> no, but thanks anyway
<vorlon> fwiw, the alternative upstart recommends for detecting service
  readiness is for the process to raise SIGSTOP when it's ready
<vorlon> doesn't require ptracing, doesn't require socket-based activation
  definitions; does require the service to run in a different mode than
  usual where it will raise the signal at the correct time
<teythoon> right, but that requires patching it, same as the socket
  activation stuff of systemd
<vorlon> (this is upstart's 'expect stop')
<vorlon> yes
<vorlon> though at DebConf, there were some evil ideas floating around
  about doing this with an LD_PRELOAD or similar ;)
<vorlon> (overriding 'daemonize')
<vorlon> er, 'daemon()'
<teythoon> ^^
<vorlon> and hey, what's suspicious about my /nick? vorlons are always
<vorlon> ;)
<teythoon> sure they are
<teythoon> but could this functionality be reasonably #ifdef'ed out for a
  proof of concept port?
<vorlon> hmm, you would need to implement some kind of replacement... if
  you added cgroups support to upstart as an alternative
<vorlon> that could work
<vorlon> i.e., you would need upstart to know when the service has exited;
  if you aren't using ptrace, you don't know the "lead pid" to watch for,
  so you need some other mechanism --> cgroups
<vorlon> and even then, what do you do for a service like openssh, which
  explicitly wants to leave child processes behind when it restarts?
<teythoon> right...
<vorlon> oh, I was hoping you knew the answer to this question ;)  Since
  AFAICS, openssh has no native support for cgroups
<teythoon> >,< I don't, but I'll think about what you've said... gotta go,
  catch what's left of the summer ;)
<teythoon> fwiw I consider fork/exec/the whole daemonizing stuff fubar...
<teythoon> see you around :)
<vorlon> later :)

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-07

<teythoon> vorlon: I thought about upstarts use of ptrace for observing the
  daemonizing process and getting hold of the child
<teythoon> vorlon: what if cgroup(f)s would guarantee that the order of
  processes listed in x/tasks is the same they were added in?
<teythoon> vorlon: that way, the first process in the list would be the
  daemonized child after the original process died, no?
<vorlon> teythoon: that doesn't tell you how many times the "lead" process
  has changed, however
<vorlon> you need synchronous notifications of the forks in order to know
  that, which currently we only get via ptrace

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-08

<teythoon> vorlon: ok, but why do the notifications have to be synchronous?
  does that imply that the processes need to be stopped until upstart does
<vorlon> teythoon: well, s/synchronous/reliable/
<vorlon> you're right that it doesn't need to be synchronous; but it can't
  just be upstart polling the status of the cgroup
<vorlon> because processes may have come and gone in the meantime
<teythoon> vorlon: ok, cool, b/c the notifications of process changes I'm
  hoping to introduce into the proc server for my cgroupfs do carry exactly
  this kind of information
<vorlon> cool
<vorlon> are you discussing an API for this with the Linux cgroups
<teythoon> otoh it would be somewhat "interesting" to get upstart to use
  this b/c of the way the mach message handling is usually implemented
<vorlon> :)
<teythoon> no, I meant in order for me to be able to implement cgroupfs I
  had to create these kind of notifications, it's not an addition to the
  cgroups api
<teythoon> is upstart multithreaded?
<vorlon> no
<vorlon> threads are evil ;)
<teythoon> ^^ I mostly agree
<vorlon> it uses a very nice event loop, leveraging signalfd among other
<teythoon> uh oh, signalfd sounds rather Linuxish
<pinotree> it is
<vorlon> I think xnox mentioned when he was investigating it that kfreebsd
  now also supports it
<vorlon> but yeah, AFAIK it's not POSIX
<pinotree> it isn't, yes
<vorlon> but it darn well should be
<vorlon> :)
<vorlon> it's the best improvement to signal handling in a long time
<teythoon> systemd also uses signalfd
<teythoon> umm, it seems I was wrong about Hurd not having ptrace, the wiki
  suggests that we do have it
<pinotree> FSVO "have"
<teythoon> ^^
<xnox> vorlon: teythoon: so ok kFreeBSD/FreeBSD ideally I'd be using
  EVFILT_PROC from kevent which allows to receive events & track: exit,
  fork, exec, track (follow across fork)
<xnox> upstart also uses waitid()
<xnox> so a ptrace/waitid should be sufficient to track processes, if Hurd
  has them.

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-09

<youpi> teythoon: yes, the shutdown notifications do stall the process
<youpi> but no more than a minute, or so
<youpi> teythoon: btw, did you end up understanding the odd thing in
<youpi> I haven't had the time to have a look
<teythoon> youpi: what odd thing? the thing about being implemented by hand
  instead of using the mig stub?
<youpi> the thing about the port being passed twice
<youpi> XXX this looks wrong to me, please have a look
<youpi> in the mach_port_request_notification call
<teythoon> ah, that was alright, yes
<youpi> ok
<youpi> so I can drop it from my TODO :)
<teythoon> this is done on the control port so that a translator is
  notified if the "parent" translator dies
<teythoon> was that in fshelp_start_translator_long though? I thought that
  was somewhere else
<youpi> that's what the patch file says
<youpi> +++ b/libfshelp/start-translator-long.c
<youpi> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ fshelp_start_translator_long (fshelp_open_fn_t
<youpi> +  /* XXX this looks wrong to me, bootstrap is used twice as
  argument... */
<youpi>                                    bootstrap,
<teythoon> right
<teythoon> I remember that when I got a better grip of the idea of
  notifications I figured that this was indeed okay
<teythoon> I'll have a quick look though
<youpi> ok
<teythoon> ah, I remember, this notifies the parent translator if the child
  dies, right
<teythoon> and it is a NO_SENDERS notification, so it is perfectly valid to
  use the same port twice, as we only hold a receive right

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-10

<teythoon> braunr: are pthreads mapped 1:1 to mach threads?
<braunr> teythoon: yes
<teythoon> I'm reading the Linux cgroups "documentation" and it talks about
  tasks (Linux threads) and thread group IDs (Linux processes) and I'm
  wondering how to map this accurately onto Hurd concepts...
<teythoon> apparently on Linux there are PIDs/TIDs that can be used more or
  less interchangeably from userspace applications
<teythoon> the Linux kernel however knows only PIDs, and each thread has
  its own, and those threads belonging to the same (userspace) PID have the
  same thread group id
<teythoon> aiui on Mach threads belong to a Mach task, and there is no
  global unique identifier exposed for threads, right?
<teythoon> braunr: ^
<tschwinge> teythoon: There is its thread port, which in combination with
  its task port should make it unique?  (I might be missing context.)
<tschwinge> Eh, no.  The task port's name will only locally be unique.
* tschwinge confused himself.
<teythoon> tschwinge, braunr: well, the proc server could of course create
  TIDs for threads the same way it creates PIDs for tasks, but that should
  probably wait until this is really needed
<teythoon> for the most part, the tasks and cgroup.procs files contain the
  same information on Linux, and not differentiating between the two just
  means that cgroupfs is not able to put threads into cgroups, just
<teythoon> that might be enough for now

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-11

<teythoon> ugh, some of the half-backed Linux interfaces will be a real
  pain in the ass to support
<teythoon> they do stuff like write(2)ing file descriptors encoded as
  decimal numbers for notifications :-/
<braunr> teythoon: for cgroup ?
<teythoon> braunr: yes, they have this eventfd based notification mechanism
<teythoon> braunr: but I fear that this is a more general problem
<braunr> do we need eventfd ?
<teythoon> I mean passing FDs around is okay, we can do this just fine with
  ports too, but encoding numbers as an ascii string and passing that
  around is just not a nice interface
<braunr> so what ?
<teythoon> it's not a designed interface, it's one people came up with b/c
  it was easy to implement
<braunr> if it's meant for compatibility, that's ok
<teythoon> how would you implement this then? as a special case in the
  write(2) implementation in the libc? that sounds horrible but I do hardly
  see another way
<teythoon> ok, some more context: the cgroup documentation says
<teythoon> write "<event_fd> <control_fd> <args>" to cgroup.event_control.
<teythoon> where event_fd is the eventfd the notification should be sent to
<pinotree> theorically they could have used sendmsg + a custom payload
<teythoon> control_fd is an fd to the pseudo file one wants notifications
<teythoon> yes, they could have, that would have been nicer to implement
<teythoon> but this...

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-12

<teythoon> ugh, gnumachs build system drives me crazy %-/
<pinotree> oh there's worse than that
<teythoon> I added a new .defs file, did as Makerules.mig.am told me to do,
  but it still does not create the stubs I need
<braunr> teythoon: gnumach doesn't
<braunr> teythoon: glibc does
<braunr> well, gnumach only creates the stubs it needs
<braunr> teythoon: you should perhaps simply use gnumach.defs
<teythoon> braunr: sure it does, e.g. vm/memory_object_default.user.c
<braunr> teythoon: what are you trying to add ?
<teythoon> braunr: I was trying to add a notification mechanism for new
<teythoon> b/c now the proc server has to query all task ports to discover
  newly created tasks, this seems wasteful
<teythoon> also if the proc server could be notified on task creation, the
  parent task is still around, so the notification can carry a reference to
<teythoon> that way gnumach wouldn't have to track the relationship, which
  would create all kind of interesting questions, like whether tasks would
  have to be reparented if the parent dies
<braunr> teythoon: notifications aren't that simple either
<teythoon> y not?
<braunr> 1/ who is permitted to receive them
<braunr> 2/ should we contain them to hurd systems ? (e.g. should a subhurd
  receive notifications concerning tasks in other hurd systems ?)
<teythoon> that's easy imho. 1/ a single process that has a host_priv
  handle is able to register for the notifications once
<braunr> what are the requirements so cgroups work as expected concerning
  tasks ?
<braunr> teythoon: a single ?
<teythoon> i.e. the first proc server that starts
<braunr> then how will subhurd proc servers work ?
<teythoon> 2/ subhurds get the notifications from the first proc server,
  and only those that are "for them"
<braunr> ok
<braunr> i tend to agree
<braunr> this removes the ability to debug the main hurd from a subhurd
<teythoon> this way the subhurds proc server doesn't even have to have the
  host_priv porsts
<teythoon> yes, but I see that as a feature tbh
<braunr> me too
<braunr> and we can still debug the subhurd from the main
<teythoon> it still works the other way around, so it's still...
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> what would you include in the notification ?
<teythoon> a reference to the new task (proc needs that anyway) adn one to
  the parent task (so proc knows what the parent process is and/or for
  which subhurd it is)
<braunr> ok
<braunr> 17:21 < braunr> what are the requirements so cgroups work as
  expected concerning tasks ?
<braunr> IOW, why is the parental relation needed ?
<braunr> (i don't know much about the details of cgroup)
<teythoon> well, currently we rely on proc_child to build this relation
<teythoon> but any task can use task_create w/o proc_child
<teythoon> until one claims a newly created task with proc_child, its
  parent is pid 1
<braunr> that's about the hurd
<braunr> i'm rather asking about cgroups
<teythoon> ah
<teythoon> the child process has to end up in the same cgroup as the parent
<braunr> does a cgroup include its own pid namespace ?
<teythoon> not quite sure what you mean, but I'd say no
<teythoon> do you mean pid namespace as in the Linux sense of that phrase?
<teythoon> cgroups group processes(threads) into groups
<teythoon> on Linux, you can then attach controllers to that, so that
  e.g. scheduling decisions or resource restrictions can be applied to
<teythoon> braunr: http://paste.debian.net/38950/
<braunr> teythoon: ok so a cgroup is merely a group of processes supervised
  by a controller
<braunr> for resource accounting/scheudling
<braunr> teythoon: where does dev_pager.c do the same ?
<teythoon> braunr: yes. w/o such controllers cgroups can still be used for
  subprocess tracking
<teythoon> braunr: well, dev_pager.c uses mig generated stubs from
<braunr> ah memory_object_reply ok
<braunr> teythoon: have you tried adding it to EXTRA_DIST ?
<braunr> although i don't expect it will change much
<braunr> teythoon: hum, you're not actually creating client stubs
<braunr> create a kern/task_notify.cli file
<braunr> as it's done with device/memory_object_reply.cli
<braunr> see #define KERNEL_USER 1
<teythoon> braunr: right, thanks :)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-13

<teythoon> hm, my notification system for newly created tasks kinda works
<teythoon> as in I get notified when a new task is created
<teythoon> but the ports for the new task and the parent that are carried
  in the notification are both MACH_PORT_DEAD
<teythoon> do I have to add a reference manually before sending it?
<teythoon> that would make sense, the mig magic transformation function for
  task_t consumes a reference iirc
<braunr> ah yes
<braunr> that reference counting stuff is some hell
<teythoon> braunr: ah, there's more though, the mig transformations are
  only done in the server stub, not in the client, so I still have to
  convert_task_to_port myself afaics
<teythoon> awesome, it works :)
<braunr> :)
<teythoon> ugh, the proc_child stuff is embedded deep into libc and signal
  handling stuff...
<teythoon> "improving" the child_proc stuff with my shiny new notifications
  wrecks havoc on the system

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-03

<gg0> openrc on debian
<braunr> gg0: ah nice

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-11

<gnu_srs1> teythoon: is the Hurd boot now fully init compatible? I would
  like to try to boot with a ported openrc in a sandbox kvm:P

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-12

<teythoon> gnu_srs1: yes, go ahead
<teythoon> gnu_srs1: you'll have to switch to sysvinit first
<teythoon> for that, you need patched sysvinit packages

<gnu_srs> teythoon: do you mean the parches in #721917?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, mostly, but there is one final patch missing
<gg0> uploading patched sysvinit to debian-ports? (or braunr's or
  teythoon's repos)
<teythoon> gg0, gnu_srs: they are actually here
  http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/gsoc/heap/debian/ but outdated
<gnu_srs> teythoon: if the sysvinit patches are outdated, can you update
  them please? and provide a package for upload to -ports (as gg0 proposed)
<teythoon> gnu_srs: i will
<gnu_srs> tks:)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-13

<teythoon> gnu_srs: i updated the sysvinit patches
<teythoon> gnu_srs: for your convenience, here are packages:
<teythoon> gnu_srs: you have to install the sysvinit-core package first,
  then the others
<teythoon> to switch to sysvinit, do update-alternatives --config runsystem
  and select runsystem.sysv
<teythoon> then, do reboot-hurd and hope for the best ;)

<gnu_srs> teythoon: thanks, will try soon. Are you submitting the updated
  patches to #721917 too?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: i already did
<gnu_srs> good;-)
<gnu_srs> teythoon: rebooted with sysv:http://paste.debian.net/75925/
<teythoon> gnu_srs: please, whenever you run into a problem, give more
<teythoon> which file are you talking about ?
<teythoon> also, as the postinst script advised you, you need to use
  {halt,reboot}-hurd *whenever* you switch the runsystem
<teythoon> not doing so wont do any harm, but it wont work
<teythoon> shutdown: /run/initctl: No such file or directory  <-- that's
  what happens if you run reboot (=reboot-sysv) w/o sysvinit being run
<teythoon> if you don't get a getty on the console, check /etc/inittab
<gnu_srs> I did note see a message from any posinst script about
  {halt,reboot}-hurd, only LC* related messages
<gnu_srs> A I missed it: You must use halt-hurd or reboot-hurd to halt or
  reboot the
<gnu_srs> system whenever you change the runsystem.
<gnu_srs> I don't see anything suspicious in /etc/inittab,
  eg. 1:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty1 is there
<teythoon> 7:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console
<teythoon> then, you'll get a getty on the mach console, even if the
  hurd-console does not start
<gnu_srs> teythoon: with 7:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console in
  /etc/inittab I get a (mach) console.
<gnu_srs> never seen that mentioned anywhere
<gnu_srs> anyway, the image is now booted with sysvinit. next to try will
  be openrc:P
<teythoon> gnu_srs: you haven't heard of the inittab entry for the mach
  console before b/c the inittab was not used before on the hurd
<teythoon> i should probably write that down in the wiki somewhere...
<youpi> shouldn't the upgrade of the sysvinit package do it too?
<youpi> (does it at least install a correct version on newer installs?)
<teythoon> it probably should / i'm not sure

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-13

<teythoon> gnu_srs: have you ported openrc already ?
<gnu_srs> I made it build (with temporary workarounds for PATH_MAX) but
  need to change at least one file to be hurd-specific before trying to
<teythoon> cool :)
<gg0> i guess not much different from http://paste.debian.net/plain/75893/
<gg0> (i didn't say it sucks but one can find it out by taking a look)
<gnu_srs> gg0: Have you talked to zigo in #openrc?. He has partial patches
  (submitted to the debian repo), you do and me too.
<gnu_srs> Maybe we should align our work.
<gnu_srs> The file to make Hurd-specific  is: init.sh.GNU (you start with
  copy of the Linux version, I start from a copy of the BSD version).
<gnu_srs> BTW: I don't think fstabinfo is available for GNU/Hurd!
<gnu_srs> gg0: Sorry, fstabinfo and moutinfo are parts of openrc, my bad:-D
<gnu_srs> mountinfo*

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-15

<gnu_srs> Hi, is these some simple way to find out the sequence of commands
  executed during boot:
<gnu_srs> current using runsystem.gnu and with sysv-rc using runsystem.sysv
<gnu_srs> I need to edit on file of OpenRC before trying to boot with
  it. (mainly mounting /run/*)
<gnu_srs> Is mount functional or is settrans .needed?

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-16

<ArneBab> gnu_srs: you are adding OpenRC? cool!
<gnu_srs> ArneBab: Working on it, will try booting when my questions here
  have been answered ;-)
<teythoon> gnu_srs: mount is functional enough to boot Debian/Hurd using
<teythoon> gnu_srs: you could add "set -x" to runsystem.*, or add "bash" to
  just drop into a shell and examine the environment interactively
<gnu_srs> teythoon: Hi, is mount a wrapper on top of settrans ...? 
<teythoon> yes
<gnu_srs> how to log the boot sequence, when booting the mach console is
  cleared when the hurd console starts?
<teythoon> you could just disable the hurd console
<gnu_srs> and the kvm console does not have scrolling functionality
<teythoon> it's actually the mach console that lacks this
<gnu_srs> copying manually is cumbersome, even if all is readable
<teythoon> but as a workaround you can use kvm .... -curses and use xterms
<teythoon> and c&p works then :)
<gnu_srs> tks, I'll try with that:P

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-17

<gnu_srs> BTW: zigo successfully booted openrc on Hurd, I haven't tried
  yet,, you know things coming in between. He used my patches to create
  updated ones:)
<gnu_srs> that version is now in experimental (I still have to operate away
  all those PATH_MAX issues, and fins at least one sh file). 
<teythoon> :/

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-21

<gnu_srs> teythoon: I don't get a scrollable output when using -curses in
  kvm, to be able to see all startup messages. Any other ideas? 
<teythoon> gnu_srs: are you sure ? i just tested this, and it works nicely
  for me
<teythoon> gnu_srs: that's how i created all the "screenshots" for my blog
<gnu_srs> teythoon: kvm -m 1024 -net nic,model=rtl8139 -net
  user,hostfwd=tcp::5564-:22 -curses -hda debian-hurd-20140115.img 
<teythoon> ah, my bad
<teythoon> gnu_srs: try -nographic
<teythoon> oh, and maybe you need to add console=com0 to the gnumach
  command line
<teythoon> b/c with -nographic, the first serial port is connected to qemus
<teythoon> sorry, i mixed this up
<gnu_srs> and how to add console=com0 to the qemu start oprtions? -kernel
  and -append are Linux only
<teythoon> # grep console /etc/default/grub
<teythoon> GRUB_CMDLINE_GNUMACH="console=com0 --crash-debug"
<teythoon> and if you want grub on the serial port:
<teythoon> # grep serial /etc/default/grub
<teythoon> GRUB_TERMINAL=serial
<teythoon> GRUB_SERIAL_COMMAND="serial --speed=9600 --unit=0 --word=8
  --parity=no --stop=1"
<gnu_srs> teythoon: with -nographic I don't get any output at all?
<teythoon> did you run update-grub ?
<gnu_srs> aha, will do
<gnu_srs> still no scrollbar with gnome-terminal, will try with xterm and
<gnu_srs> it works: with rxvt, tks:-D
<teythoon> good :)
<teythoon> i found -nographic to be quite handy
<gnu_srs> in /etc/default/grub: GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet" and
<gnu_srs> linux configuration parameters in a gnumach boot setup?
<teythoon> those won't be used
<teythoon> unless the grub scripts find a linux kernel in /boot
<teythoon> it's just the stock debian configuration file
<gnu_srs> nevertheless:-(
<teythoon> what ?
<gnu_srs> there could be OS-specific files: Linux, kFreeBSD, Hurd?
<teythoon> or, preferebly, one that works on every os ? like it is now ;)
<gnu_srs> OK, one that works on every OS, with a common part and
  OS-specific parts?
<teythoon> that's how it is now
<teythoon> stuff with LINUX in it is used for linux
<teythoon> stuff with GNUMACH in it is used for gnumach

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-22

<gnu_srs> teythoon: A boot message segfault: (syv-rc specific?)
<gnu_srs>  + exec /sbin/init -a
<gnu_srs> INIT: version 2.88 booting
<gnu_srs> Using makefile-style concurrent boot in runlevel S.
<gnu_srs> end_request: I/O error, dev 02:00, sector 0
<gnu_srs> Segmentation fault
<gnu_srs> Activating swap...done.
<gnu_srs> Checking root file system...fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
<gnu_srs> another: mount: cannot remount /proc: Invalid argument
<gnu_srs> ...
<gnu_srs> df: Warning: cannot read table of mounted file systems: No such
  file or directory
<gnu_srs> openrc boots on Hurd, login (user,root) works, read-only mode so
  far, have to tweak some scripts:)
<braunr> not bad
<ArneBab> gnu_srs: woah!
<ArneBab> very cool!

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-22

<ArneBab> I think with that you are doing the most useful thing to avoid
  OpenRC: If it provides almost the same as systemd and runs on the Hurd,
  then there is no technical reason for using systemd, but many against it.
<ArneBab> s/avoid OpenRC/avoid systemd/
<ArneBab> (gah, brain is jumbled)
<Shentino> I hate systemd because it monopolizes cgroups
<Shentino> which is SUPPOSED to be a generic interface open to anyone
<Shentino> I do not want an unholy alliance in a kernel-user api
<azeem_> ArneBab: the openrc maintainer will take care it will get
<azeem_> ArneBab: also, not sure what you mean about systemd, the question
  isn't so much between openrc vs. systemd, but upstart vs. systemd
<azeem_> at least for the Technical Committee decision, none of the
  tech-ctte members seems to consider openrc as n realistic contender
<azeem_> s/as n/as a/
<gnu_srs> azeem_: seem like it is so:-(
<gnu_srs> maybe in a future, if openrc gets some attention and developers,
  it could become a one-for-all solution;-)
<teythoon> gnu_srs: nice :)
<teythoon> ignore the proc related message
<teythoon> gnu_srs: there is no way to associate the segfault with a
  process for me, can you shed some light on which process dies ?
<teythoon> as for df complaining, you could fix this up like youpi did:
<teythoon> grep ln /etc/hurd/rc
<teythoon> ln -s /proc/mounts /var/run/mtab
<teythoon> the proper way is to fix our libc of course
<gnu_srs> teythoon: I was just coping the boot messages, I don't know
  either which process segfaults
<teythoon> hm, maybe you can make openrc more verbose about what it starts
<gnu_srs> All I wrote earlier was from sysv-rc
<teythoon> ah
<teythoon> i've never seen that then
<ArneBab> azeem_: actually I think OpenRC is the only sane choice: It is
  the only choice which supports other kernels.
<ArneBab> Shentino: I can’t stand systemd, because it establishes a tight
  control over the init process by encouraging developers to add
  dependencies to libraries which are so tightly coupled with others, that
  they cannot be adapted without affecting the whole system.
<ArneBab> Shentino: But I wrote about that in much more details:
  http://draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles TL;DR:
  distributions become completely dependent on a small group and they throw
  away the skills their maintainers already have (shell scripting)
<ArneBab> And systemd is Linux-only… 
<ArneBab> …with no intention of changing that.
<braunr> why would debian strive to support other kernels ?
<braunr> instead of other kernels adjusting ?
<braunr> if posix introduces new apis, are we going to say no, or are we
  going to try and support them ?
<braunr> the issue of multi-kernel support is completely irrelevant
<braunr> what you're saying about tight coupling is actually the only real
  issue of systemd
<ArneBab> braunr: I see a difference between providing a stable API which
  others can easily replicate and a running target with no intention to
  become cross-kernel usable (my experience with udev suggests that they
  won’t really try to keep anything stable for long).
<ArneBab> braunr: but the tight coupling is the main issue for me, too:
  that creates a vulnerability for the free software community.
<braunr> no, the free software community doesn't risk much here
<braunr> it's a technical problem
<braunr> ok, yes, posix as a point of convergence is clearly not the same
  as linux as an implementation that diverges
<braunr> agreed
<ArneBab> if the systemd people decide to go a certain direction which
  makes it impossible to provide a certain feature while using their new
  tech, then there is a problem.
<braunr> but it still implies we have to adapt
<braunr> from my point of view, multi-kernel distributions are a technical
<braunr> if you want something really efficient, you want it very well
<teythoon> i'm concerned by the linux kernel making up interfaces w/o
  proper considerations
<ArneBab> braunr: in Gentoo we had all the hassle with /usr on a separate
  partition. There are usecases for that, and Gentoo wanted to provide
  them, but udev (now systemd) made that impossible.
<braunr> teythoon: yes i'm concerned about that too
<teythoon> we will never be able to implement the cgroup interface for
  example b/c it is too badly designed
<braunr> badly ?
<braunr> it's system specific
<ArneBab> braunr: also the systemd folks could essentially hold Linus at
  ransom: “We couple userspace tightly to implementation details in the
  kernel, so when you break the implementation in a way which we don’t
  like, you’ll break userspace in the worst possible way”
<braunr> it's very hard to design an interface without properly
  understanding what it would internally imply in the implementation
<braunr> ArneBab: that's already the case
<teythoon> system specific in a way that it will be impossible to implement
  on non-monolithic kernels
<braunr> teythoon: exactly
<braunr> they didn't think of that because they don't care
<braunr> and why would they ?
<braunr> it doesn't make the interface bad per se
<ArneBab> it is the case in systemd, but not in sysVinit
<braunr> well it is too
<braunr> but sysvint is less demanding
<braunr> again, the coupling is the problem
<ArneBab> yes
<braunr> systemd comes from people with other goals and interests
<ArneBab> I think everything I wrote comes down to that.
<braunr> they're very technical, very business oriented
<braunr> they want to get up to speed with competitors quickly
<braunr> they're not wrong in doing that
<braunr> it just helps understand why they get with such results
<ArneBab> A distribution would be foolish to let other people take over a
  crucial part of the system when those other people have a track record of
  coupling more and more parts of the system with their product.
<braunr> and i agree, i don't want it either
<braunr> but please, stop with the nonsense
<braunr> don't say openrc is the only sane one because it's the only
  multikernel one
<braunr> personally, i consider that very argument almost insane itself
<braunr> considering distributions that are hardly used can really have any
  weight in the decision is absurd
<ArneBab> openrc is the only sane one, because it keeps already aquired
  skills useful.
<braunr> s/distributions/kernels/
<ArneBab> (that’s my opinion)
<braunr> we have to make progress
<braunr> the init system is clearly obsolete and lacking features
<braunr> so "acquired" skills here are irrelevant too
<braunr> if it takes acquiring new skills to operate a better init system,
  i'm all for it
<braunr> after all, it makes a lot more sense to me than all those fancy
  languages/technologies like C# and ruby that have gained so much
  popularity in so little time
<ArneBab> If you can get a similarly good init system wiothut forcing
  people to learn new skills, that’s a big win.
<braunr> you probably can't
<ArneBab> OpenRC is pretty close in features to systemd
<teythoon> err
<teythoon> not even close
<braunr> teythoon is right
<braunr> openrc is just sysvinit++
<teythoon> no
<teythoon> openrc replaces the sysv rc, not sysvinit
<braunr> ok
<teythoon> it complements it
<braunr> i wasn"'t being pedantic here
<teythoon> nicely in my opinion
<braunr> yes i like it too
<braunr> but i'm afraid it's not a complete solution
<ArneBab> I think I need to be more pedantic in what I say: A system-boot
  with OpenRC is pretty close in features to a system-boot using systemd.
<braunr> on the other hand, when i see discussions about event driven
  systems and handling of dependencies, it sounds like something like
  openrc could do the job, and something else, system-specific, would
  handle the rest
<braunr> ArneBab: i disagree
<teythoon> me too
<teythoon> ArneBab: have you actually used systemd?
<ArneBab> I have read about what it provides.
<ArneBab> My udev experience burned me pretty badly.
<braunr> udev is only one part
<braunr> but actually, coupling is both a problem and a great feature
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> it's precisely the integration of many services previously
  organized in a very messy way that makes it better
<braunr> and cgroups, by accurately tracking resources, allow even better
<teythoon> heh, i watched lennarts recent talk about kdbus
<ArneBab> but it does so by pulling in more and more parts instead of
  providing a clean interface which separate projects can use.
<braunr> again, the coupling is too tight
<braunr> it's hard to hook in between
<ArneBab> teythoon: I watched lennart troll a talk pretty badly…
<ArneBab> braunr: yes
<teythoon> he cites mach and hurd for having an nice ipc mechanism, and
  linux lacking such a system
<braunr> haha
<braunr> i was expecting such comparisons :)
<ArneBab> that’s why he writes an init-system which does not run on the
<teythoon> ArneBab: that's trolling on your part ;)
<braunr> :)
<ArneBab> somehow yes… 
<braunr> what i personally get out of this is that, in the end, proper
  messaging at the kernel level is something people do want
<braunr> and if you make stuff like x use it, why not things like the
  network stack and the file system
<teythoon> i wish the linux kernel would allow the kernel devs to write
  nicer interfaces
<ArneBab> yes
<braunr> they're almost in the process of acknowledging the merits of
  multiserver architectures :)
<teythoon> b/c they lack a proper ipc mechanism, they do stuff like ad-hoc
  filesystem-based interfaces that are crappy to support on the hurd :-/
* ArneBab has been out of the loop for too long… 
<braunr> teythoon: what file system do you consider "crappy to support on
  the hurd" ?
<teythoon> braunr: cgroupfs in particular
<teythoon> not crappy, but impossible
<braunr> well, that's probably because we need realy resource containers
<braunr> real*
<teythoon> no, we'll never be able to implement the current interface
<braunr> i didn't study it as you did so i trust you
<teythoon> braunr:
<braunr> ok this would require proper support at the client side
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> i wouldn't say impossible but definitely not as clean as we would
  want it
<braunr> far from it
<teythoon> how would you ever implement it w/o fixing the client
  (i.e. fixing the interface first) ?
<braunr> the client would translate the request
<teythoon> magical write retries ?
<braunr> probably
<teythoon> uh
<braunr> clients are the only entities which know what their file
  desctiptors refer to
<braunr> descriptors*
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> so writing such a request would make the client get a magic retry,
  and use the proper rpc, passing the proper rights instead
<teythoon> yeah, i can see how that could work
<teythoon> but i'm not sure that we should go down this path ...
<braunr> we probably really do'nt want to :)
<braunr> i'd personally be fine if debian would allow two init systems
<teythoon> me too
<braunr> with the powerful linux-specific one still allowing sysvinit
<teythoon> in particular b/c the sysvinit scripts are already there
<braunr> from what i've read, they all provide some decent backward
  compatibility with sysvinit
<teythoon> yes
<braunr> and i think we can count on the linux community to riot if,
  assuming systemd was chosen, it becomes too hard to use and tweak
<braunr> again, these people want their software to be used
<braunr> so they'll probably manage something decent in the long run,
  whatever is chosen
<braunr> i don't care much
<braunr> :)
<kilobug> AFAIK Debian is planning to let users chose the init system, the
  discussion is only on what should be the main/default one; but I might
  have misunderstood it
<braunr> that was one of the possibilities, yes
<braunr> maybe we could help the debate by agreeing on whether or not we
  consider supporting ports is that important, as port maintainers,
  considering we'll probably keep the ability to use sysvinit scripts
<braunr> and making that decision known
<teythoon> and stating that we consider openrc an worthwile incremental
  improvement, whatever debian decides to do wrt to the default init system
<braunr> for example, yes
<braunr> we should discuss that with youpi and thomas
<braunr> tschwinge: ^
<braunr> when they have some time later :)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-24

<gnu_srs> Good news, a successful boot of Hurd with OpenRC:
  http://paste.debian.net/78119/ :-)
<gnu_srs> ramains to fix the false negative for checkpath -W
<gnu_srs> remains*
<braunr> not bad

<gnu_srs> teythoon: btw, the segfault happens when starting the bootlogd
<gnu_srs> end_request: I/O error, dev 02:00, sector 0
<gnu_srs> Segmentation fault
<teythoon> gnu_srs: nice progress :)
<teythoon> i've never seen bootlogd crash like that, though i
<teythoon> i'm not sure it is installed
<gnu_srs> how can I check / ? it is mounted RW and even if cd to /run which
  is on tmpfs, fsysopts --readonly fails:
<gnu_srs> :fsysopts: /: --readonly: Device or resource busy
<gnu_srs> I don't have bootlogd installed the segfault is at:
<gnu_srs> checkroot.sh: hwclock.sh mountdevsubfs.sh hostname.sh hdparm
<gnu_srs> called by /etc/rcS.d/S06checkroot.sh
<teythoon> you should probably create this directory that it fails to
  create early in the boot process

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-25

<antrik> braunr: being Linux-only is *part* of the "tight coupling"
  strategy of the systemd cabal
<antrik> of course you could implement all the Linux-specific interfaces on
  other systems; as you could implement any other interfaces relied upon or
  provided by systemd components...
<antrik> (this is in fact Lennart's favourit cop-out argument whenever
  someone raises concern about this)
<antrik> the problem however is that such alternative implementations
  usually have prohibitive costs
<braunr> yes i know
<antrik> (and Lennart knows that perfectly well... he doesn't exactly take
  pains to conceal the fact that it's a cop-out)
<antrik> their whole point is to create a tightly integrated stack of
  monopolistic components, giving a shit about any possible alternatives
<antrik> this does have an obvious appeal: it *significantly* reduces the
  cost of innovation within their stack
<antrik> at the same time however it kills the traditional innovation
  driver in the free software eco-system, which is competition among
  interchangable components
<antrik> quite frankly, it makes little sense that other distributions are
  embracing systemd in droves: the tight coupling pretty much turns them
  all into Fedora look-alikes, questioning the point of their very
<zacts> what is dmd?
<antrik> as for Debian considering fringe kernels in their decision, I
  think it makes *perfect* sense: the real value of Debian is precisely the
  fact that it supports so many different things, making it a good base to
  build upon
<antrik> (it's just unfortunate that many Debian developers do not realise
  this, and instead try to compete with user-oriented distributions...)
<antrik> zacts: daemon managing daemon? yet another new init system...
<zacts> yeah
<zacts> didn't know if you have an opinion on it vs systemd
<zacts> and whether or not hurd will use it..
<antrik> hm... not sure whether I do ;-)
<braunr> antrik: one could argue an init system is hard to make
  interchangeable without also making it quite poor in functionality
<antrik> the GNU system uses it, right? when using the GNU system with the
  Hurd (as it's really meant to be), that would obviously mean using DMD
  with Hurd. though I'm not sure whether anyone has actually tried that
  combination ;-)
<braunr> just to make it clear, i'm totally not in favor of systemd
<braunr> i'm just trying to measure the value of an interchangeable init
  system here
<braunr> value versus cost
<braunr> why is it bad to try to compete with user oriented distros ?
<antrik> braunr: I suspect most of the really good things about systemd
  could be kept while making it somewhat more open at fairly little cost...
<antrik> braunr: because that's not Debian's strength -- and never will be
<antrik> trying to compete in this space too hard is bound to fail, at only
  bears the risk of loosing the actual strengths
<braunr> antrik: sounds true
<antrik> hm... thinking about it, I'd say it actually makes more sense for
  the init system to be distribution-specific than kernel-specific...
<braunr> that makes sense
<braunr> but systemd isn't just an init system
<antrik> it's really the distribution's job to create a well-integrated
  system. and basically, that's what the systemd cabal is doing for
<antrik> it's just problematic that they have so much influence in
  important upstream projects, that they are basically killing any chance
  for others to integrate things in different ways
<braunr> antrik: agreed
<braunr> the tight coupling i refer to is about the init system and the
  upstream projects you mention such as udev, acpid, console-kit, etc..
<antrik> yeah... and GNOME
<braunr> is it really that coupled now ?
<antrik> don't really know; but judging from remarks people make, it must
  be pretty bad
<braunr> this reminds me of the talk on gnome 3 last year at fosdem
<braunr> it would have been hilarious if gnome wasn't such an important
<antrik> (specifically, GNOME is now pretty much tied to logind AIUI, which
  is not entirely inseparable from systemd -- but again, the cost is
<teythoon> i don't get what all the hate here is about ...
<antrik> in fact, certain people used that as an argument why Debian must
  switch to systemd as init, as they are already pretty much forced to use
  various of the other coupled components anyways, and trying to decouple
  them is too costly for Debian...
<braunr> teythoon: hate ? here ?
<teythoon> i mean they don't do this for fun, they actually provide
  something of value, right ?
<braunr> some value
<antrik> teythoon: they?
<braunr> but they remove the kind of value that made free software evolve
  the way it did, as antrik said
<teythoon> the evil cabal around systemd ;)
<antrik> I didn't say "evil"... not explicitly at least ;-)
<teythoon> then again, if you are runnign linux/gnome3 and plug in a second
  monitor, that one is automatically activated
<braunr> yes, that's what they want to achieve
<teythoon> that's what they achieved
<braunr> i mean, they targetted that, it's not a side effect
<teythoon> and anyone not happy with how they did that can surely provide a
  nicer solution ;)
<antrik> teythoon: as I said, there are clearly good aspects to what they
  are doing -- but at the same time it's very dangerous to the free
  software eco-system...
<braunr> teythoon: not easily
<teythoon> antrik: i don't buy that
<braunr> i do
<teythoon> braunr: yes, not easily. that is kind of the point, right ?
<braunr> pulling projects such as gnome into a category of kernel specific
  applications is dangerous
<braunr> teythoon: well, considering who they are and the means they have,
  they could have spent the time to do it right for everyone
<teythoon> maybe
<antrik> err... activating a second monitor is not in any way tied to
  systemd or related compontents... I think you are talking about a second
<teythoon> that's another killer feature they achieved, yes
<antrik> (which is nice, but quite frankly, a niche use case in my book...)
<teythoon> maybe you're not the typical user
<antrik> I'm not. but the *typical* user definitely doesn't care about
<teythoon> if you say so
<teythoon> antrik: when you say it's dangerous what 'they' are doing, what
  do you mean exactly ?
<teythoon> dangerous for whom ?
<antrik> asides from schools in developing countries, who try everything to
  save on IT costs, I really can't think of many users for multi-seat...
<teythoon> (maybe schools all around the world trying to cut down their
<teythoon> or like everyone, here, a $30 dongle that gives you an extra
  workstation, how awesome is that ?
<antrik> teythoon: see above: they are killing the ability to combine
  interchangable components, which has always been a core asset of the free
  software ecosystem
<teythoon> antrik: so gnome is going for systemd, and gnome loses the
  ability to be used w/o systemd
<teythoon> why do you care ? how does this affect the whole ecosystem ?
<teythoon> i really don't get why everyone is getting so upset about this
<antrik> teythoon: who cares about a dongle giving an extra workstation?
  the remaining users of workstations are either corporate -- who prefer
  dedicated boxes for organisational reasons -- or gamers, who want all the
  power to themselves...
<braunr> teythoon: well gnome is kind of one of the major destkop software
  in the free software world
<antrik> s/one of//
<teythoon> antrik: you stated that you havent used gnome3, yet you have an
  opinion how tightly it should be coupled with systemd or linux
<teythoon> people who haven't used systemd or upstart have an opinion about
  which one should be preferred
<braunr> teythoon: why do you think people shouldn't think about systems as
  a whole ?
<antrik> teythoon: actually, I am using it (for some value of "use") --
  though in legacy mode, as my hardware can't run the new bling...
<braunr> in that case, people shouldn't be allowed to vote, because that
  would require them to be politicians ..
<teythoon> it's okay to think about that
<braunr> i don't think it is
<antrik> teythoon: but seriously, whether *I* have used it is quite beside
  the point. I have no illusions about being a niche user
<braunr> people don't need to use something to actually understand it
<teythoon> but i cannot stand all the whining lately in the free software
<braunr> whining isn't fair
<braunr> i mean, the word
<teythoon> y ?
<braunr> it's a big problem and complaining to force a debate is important
<teythoon> yes, but "they" are solving problems, and everyone is
  complaining for one reason or the other
<braunr> they are also creating problems
<braunr> and not everyone is complaining
<teythoon> as opposed to offering alternatives
<braunr> that's a major issue, a lot of people are favorable to these
<teythoon> and if you don't like what "they" are building, you are free not
  to use it, no ? that's a freedom too ;)
<braunr> no
<braunr> you aren't
<teythoon> what ?
<braunr> that's precisely the point
<braunr> you'll be de facto forced to use it if you want to keep using the
<teythoon> i'm free not to use gnome3
<braunr> you won't be free from using linux if you want gnome3
<teythoon> what kind of argument is that ?
<braunr> i'm abusing the word freedom
<braunr> because it has no clear meaning in practice
<braunr> as antrik said, it's about interchangeability and portability
<braunr> and alternatives
<braunr> accepting the way systemd is designed is a major shift towards
  making linux its own standard, away from the rest
<braunr> and the way it's done isn't thought to easily allow the
  alternatives to keep up with the changes
<teythoon> we agreed the other day that they shouldn't create ad-hoc
  interfaces like they do, yes
<braunr> well that's the whole point
<teythoon> you just talked "about the way systemd is designed"
<braunr> they could invest some more effort to make well designed
  interfaces that allow changing both the dependencies and the services
<teythoon> how is that related to bad interface design ?
<braunr> for me, it's almost a synonym
<braunr> and we discussed it
<teythoon> aren't tightness of coupling and quality of interfaces
  completely orthogonal ?
<braunr> it is designed with a narrow set of apparently company directed
  interested towards a single system, a single distribution even, and
  nothing else
<braunr> no
<braunr> absolutely not, when it's about something that should be
<braunr> an interface that forces tight coupling is of low quality to me
<antrik> braunr: they claim it's not actually company-directed... and I
  tend to believe them on *that* point TBH
<braunr> antrik: this would have been a valid reason at least
<antrik> teythoon: it's just not right that some people can no longer use
  major pieces of free software just because a tiny but highly vocal cabal
  decides to disrupt the whole ecosystem
<teythoon> what are you talking about ? you are free to use older versions
  of the software
<braunr> i's not technically feasible
<braunr> or it would require forking to maintain
<braunr> again, it's the start of a rift
<teythoon> but, if the gnome people want to go into that direction, who are
  you to say that they shouldn't ?? that's what i get the least about this
  kind of argument...
<braunr> i'm part of the free software community
<braunr> more accurately, the free unix-like community
<teythoon> and you are actively developing gnome... ?
<braunr> if they want to get out of this community, they'll hurt it, and
<braunr> do you understand what a rift is ?
<teythoon> but that's their choice, no ?
<braunr> a major division ?
<braunr> so what ?
<braunr> it doesn't mean it's a good one
<teythoon> you pick the desktop environment you like next best and be done
  with it ?
<braunr> it's almost public service at this point
<braunr> what if they all do the same thing ?
<teythoon> err
<teythoon> they don't
<braunr> you won't be free to do what you want because the technical
  possibility will have disappeared
<braunr> kde might
<braunr> if only to compete with gnome
<teythoon> well, if you don't like hte direction a project is taking, you
  fork it
<teythoon> that's what happened
<braunr> exactly ..
<teythoon> why the long faces ?
<braunr> forks increase complexity and reduce manpower
<braunr> fork == division
<braunr> forking in the free software community is normally a last resort
<teythoon> huh ? since when is this considered a bad thing ?
<braunr> it's not a bad thing per se
<braunr> it usually implies a bad situation
<teythoon> < braunr> fork == division
<teythoon> and division == rift
<braunr> think of these situations that were caused by stupid drama and
  lead to the duplication of a lot of effort
<braunr> openbsd, eglibc, jenkins, to name a few
<teythoon> i don't
<teythoon> why would i ? i never created these forks
<braunr> it affects the community as a whole
<teythoon> but the people who did thought it was necessary
<braunr> the fact they could do it is good, the fact they had to do it
<braunr> they were usually forced by the situation
<braunr> and often by the stupidity of other people
<teythoon> someone forced someone else to fork a project ? with a gun or
  something like this ?
<teythoon> i don't buy this ;)
<braunr> of course not ..
<braunr> eglibc was forced by the inability of drepper to accept a whole
  class of patches
<braunr> openbsd because theo de raadt has some huge ego
<braunr> for jenkins, it was a licensing issue iirc
<braunr> nothing technical at all
<braunr> nothing in the interest of the community
<teythoon> err
<teythoon> it brings diversity
<braunr> no
<braunr> netbsd versus freebsd brings diversity
<teythoon> i thought that was a good thing
<braunr> openbsd was just agotistic crap
<braunr> ego*
<teythoon> if there is no diversity, why should stuff be interchangeable if
  there are no alternatives?
<braunr> and netbsd and freebsd aren't exactly forks, they're both bsd
  based but had different goals from the start
<braunr> that's not what i'm talking about
<braunr> eglibc isn't exactly a new libc
<braunr> it's glibc+the stuff that should have gone into it
<antrik> teythoon: the stuff the systemd cabal does builds on the work of
  thousands of projects and people; yet they act as if the don't own anyone
  anything, and it's fine to boot out large parts of the community whos
  work they are building on
<braunr> iceweasel isn't a whole new firefox
<braunr> most often, alternatives aren't forks of one another
<braunr> if they are, they have diverged a lot
<teythoon> antrik: that is your interpretation, and i respectfully disagree
  with it;)
<braunr> and usually have different goals
<braunr> that's diversity, and i'm very ok with it
<braunr> (being a hurd guy and all)
<braunr> but forking because of decisions that prevent alternatives is a
  very bad reason to fork
<teythoon> again, who are you to tell a project (say gnome) what they
  should do or not ?
<braunr> that question makes no sense
<braunr> we're trying to think objectively
<braunr> forget who we are
<braunr> think about what should be done
<teythoon> no such thing ;)
<braunr> ok well, in that case, i'm a very smart person who knows a lot of
  things, and people had better do what i tell them ;p
<braunr> satisfied ? :)
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> that's much better actually
<braunr> not really ..
<teythoon> it's more honest
<braunr> no it was sarcasm
<braunr> what was honest are the arguments i explained
<braunr> why care about who says them ?
<teythoon> i do
<antrik> teythoon: there is not much interpretation in there really. some
  of their own statements are quite explicit...
<braunr> damn non scalable kernel ..
<teythoon> who is "their"? what statements ?
<braunr> teythoon: when building glibc, there are so many nodes to fake
  that ext2fs+fakeroot allocate enough ports to starve kernel memory ...
<teythoon> if i were mr. gnome3 and you would tell me that i should cuddle
  with systemd b/c that's bad for one reason or another, the first thing
  i'd like to know is who is telling me that
<braunr> teythoon: why not solely consider the argument ?
<teythoon> braunr: yes, i can imagine fakeroot doing that
<antrik> teythoon: Lennart and his friends. not sure how much of these
  statements I have seen written down -- part of it I heard myself from
  their own mouths
<teythoon> braunr: b/c maybe i like to develop my project in the direction
  i want
<braunr> that's unrelated
<teythoon> and if anyone disagrees, she may fork
<braunr> this is a debate
<teythoon> why ?
<teythoon> so now we are debating what i may develop or not ? you lost me
<braunr> a way to reach consensus
<braunr> many people are discussing so that projects like debian and gnome3
  make the best decisions
<braunr> a naive way to explain it is that the result is the sum of what
  everyone likes and how louds he speaks for it
<teythoon> sure but you are not a gnome developer, no ?
<braunr> no, but again, i'm a free software community member
<braunr> and this affects the whole community
<braunr> because gnome3 is a major software component used by a lot of
<braunr> well, gnome at least
<teythoon> so the gnome project needs to seek consensus with everyone of
  the free software community ?
<braunr> no
<braunr> that would be unanimity
<teythoon> but wrt to the systemd integration ?
<braunr> siding with systemd is starting to get away from the free software
<braunr> or, by bringing a lot of people along, dividing it
<teythoon> that's your interpretation
<braunr> yes
<braunr> always
<braunr> you don't have to say it, we're not doing raw science here
<braunr> it's implicit
<teythoon> i think it's important to point that out and make it explicit
<braunr> you made it several times
<braunr> we got the point
<braunr> what matters in the current discussion is whether you agree or not
  and why
<braunr> and this will be your interpretation too
<braunr> and we'll see if it's convincing
<braunr> but, from experience, i expect noone will be convinced ;p
<teythoon> ^^
<braunr> the issue is too tied with the core goals we have in mind
<teythoon> but why does it matter whether i agree or not
<teythoon> that's my point actually
<braunr> you seem to have a problem understanding the issue, i was trying
  to convince you there is one
<braunr> so, if i want to achieve that, it matters
<teythoon> what core goals ?
<braunr> basic dialectic
<braunr> well, for example, for me, i want people to think of the system as
  a whole
<braunr> i want something effective, technically very good, and that
  respects user freedoms
<braunr> i also want alternatives, i won't explain why, let's say it's
<teythoon> i agree
<braunr> well, systemd people don't think of the system as a whole
<braunr> here, what i call "system" is very large
<braunr> it would almost equal society
<braunr> i understand why they do that
<braunr> they have the right to do that
<braunr> but then i could say i understand why people make proprietary
  software, and they also have the right to do it, i still won't approve it
<braunr> it contradicts my personal goals, my personal view of how things
  should be
<teythoon> i completely agree
<teythoon> but then again, what you said now and the way you said it was
  very different
<braunr> maybe, it's 3am, i'm sick and exhausted :)
<teythoon> more abstract
<braunr> when i give an opinion
<braunr> actually, when anyone gives an opinion
<braunr> i consider it implicit that it's their point of view alone
<braunr> they're not enforcing anything
<braunr> merely speaking out
<teythoon> people tend to overestimate the importance of their own opinion
<braunr> hm i wouldn't say so
<braunr> and that's probably why the "who" doesn't matter a lot to me
<braunr> it would matter if the person in question had real power
<braunr> and his opinion could have a strong influence
<braunr> in which case it wouldn't be overestimated
<braunr> i could say what i think to systemd people
<antrik> teythoon: quite frankly, I'm not sure what you are complaining
  about. the systemd followers are trying to impose their opinions on
  various projects. other people (including braunr and me, among many
  others) are voicing counter-opinions. what's wrong with that?
<braunr> but i'm pertty certain the weight they'll associate to what i tell
  them will be very low :)
<braunr> antrik: he called it "annoying whining"
<braunr> i think it's the only problem
<antrik> braunr: I don't think the systemd people associate much weight to
  *anything* others say... ;-)
<braunr> heh :)
<braunr> to make an historic analogy
<braunr> it seems to me they're repeating the same mistakes others did
  during the unix wars
<teythoon> antrik: but when you say "the systemd followers are trying to
  impose their opinion on various projects", don't you dismiss the
  possibility that the gnome3 people just want to make external displays
<braunr> of course they do
<braunr> don't you dismiss that proprietary software author just want to
  make money ?
<teythoon> no
<braunr> well, if that's the only thing you keep in mind to make your
  opinion, you'll miss important points
<teythoon> that is an example of course
<braunr> they're sacrificing interchangeability and starting a possibly
  major rift in the community for hot pluggable displays
<braunr> it may not be worth it
<teythoon> not supporting stuff like that might make the whole ecosystem
<braunr> i'm not saying it shouldn't be done
<braunr> i'm saying it should be done while sacrificing other important
<braunr> it would just take a little mort effort
<braunr> and even if it wasn't done
<teythoon> that's what i meant by "whining"
<teythoon> no offense
<braunr> what is the problem of it being "obsolete" ?
<teythoon> but talk is cheap, offering alternative solutions is hard
<braunr> isn't unix obsolete ? isn't xorg obsolete ?
<braunr> hum no
<teythoon> no one did, so they implemented their nice features
<braunr> the point isn't to offer alternative solutions
<braunr> it's to make them possible
<braunr> or at least, not deny their technical feasibility because they
  don't care
<braunr> teythoon: see, "interchangeability and starting a possibly major
  rift" don't look to conflict with your personal goals
<braunr> that's the point where i think i can no longer do anything to
  convince you
<braunr> so i'll head to bed :)
<teythoon> heh, me too :)
<braunr> honestly, i don't care a lot
<braunr> i mean
<braunr> it won't change much for me
<braunr> but again, my brain is wired to think of things as a whole
<braunr> on that note, good night :)
<teythoon> good night :)
<antrik> teythoon: again, IT'S NOT ABOUT DISPLAYS
<antrik> believe me, I do have some understanding how display hotplugging
<antrik> also, the problem is not that gnome3 supports logind. the problem
  is that gnome3 works *only* with logind now AIUI
<antrik> there is yet another way to state the fundamental problem
<antrik> there is a kind of social contract among free software projects:
  every maintainer takes a reasonable amount of extra effort to support use
  cases beyond his own. in return, his use cases are supported by other
<antrik> the systemd guys are breaking this contract, by explicitly
  refusing, up front, to take *any* effort to accomodate other projects'

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-28

<azeem_> teythoon:
<teythoon> azeem_: pffff :)
<braunr> heh
<teythoon> which reminds me
<teythoon> if we want to state our position wrt the default init system
  debate we should probably do it right now
<braunr> yes
<teythoon> ml or collaborative editor ?
<azeem_> well, tech-ctte chair called the vote only for the default init
  system for the Linux-ports
<azeem_> the vote got shot down on technicalities, but that might stand
<azeem_> I think that is a good thing, cause it implies that not one init
  system has to be adopted across all ports
<teythoon> we talked the other day that it might make sense just to state
  our view and our needs
<azeem_> sure.
<azeem_> I think what's needed is (i) an init-system agnostic system to set
  the enable/disable state of services (ii) possibly mandating a .ini-style
  config file along the style of whatever init system gets chosen as
  default for Linux, to be used by non-Linux init systems as inut
<azeem_> input*
<azeem_> just my 0.02 EUR
<teythoon> uh
<braunr> looks overkill
<teythoon> i was thinking more along the lines of 1) we have never used the
  default debian init system and are cool with not using the default in the
  future, 2) we intend to use sysvinit in the future, 3) to that end, we
  ask the init script machinery to be left in place
<braunr> but then, people managed to write stuff like libvirt
<braunr> so who knows
<teythoon> 4) we will help maintaining it as part of our porter effort
<braunr> i agree with teythoon 
<teythoon> 5) we look forward to using openrc as incremental improvement,
  complementing our sysvinit boot solution
<braunr> yes that would be nice
<teythoon> i'll write a draft to debian-hurd, ok ?
<gnu_srs> openrc now has a dependency loop resolver, so parallel would
<teythoon> so is insserv, isn't it ?
<gnu_srs> there were complaints on openrc
  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945 in the tech-ctte
  discussions, now fixed
<azeem_> gnu_srs: please accept the fact that openrc will not be picked by
  the tech-ctte for the Linux ports
<gnu_srs> azeem_: I do, I'm referring to arguments during the discussion
<azeem_> sure, just checking
<ArneBab> teythoon: your post is being used to portray systemd cgroups
  treatment as the right way…
<teythoon> ArneBab: so ?
<braunr> it probably is the right way
<braunr> that's not the problem
<ArneBab> do you want to clear that up? (do I remember correctly that you
  did not like that way?)
<braunr> we don't like the cgroups interface
<teythoon> i will
<braunr> not the feature
<ArneBab> braunr: that’s what I meant
<teythoon> exactly
<braunr> the feature amounts to resource containers in the hurd critique
<braunr> we do want that too :)
<braunr> anatoly: you want them to rewrite cgroups ?
<braunr> err
<braunr> ArneBab: ^

dbus in linux kernel.

<teythoon> i've been thinking
<teythoon> maybe the magic write stuff isn't that bad after all
<braunr> :)
<braunr> i was thinking the same thing actually
<teythoon> i mean, it's not the nicest thing, but it shows how flexible our
  solution is
<braunr> the hurd is a lot about glue code already so why not
<teythoon> the problem is that there is no way to test cgroupfs
<teythoon> the main user is systemd, and it requires tons of other stuff
<braunr> right
<teythoon> any other user of cgroups is also probably using other
  linux-interfaces too

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-29

<gnu_srs> About openrc having a dependency loop resolver: <teythoon>: so is
  insserv, isn't it ?
<gnu_srs> I found is_loop_detected() in insserv/listing.c but that one just
  exits without telling where the loop is

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-01-29

* youpi trying the new sysvinit
<youpi> hopefully we'll then be able to at last use the proper ifup/ifdown
  debian way for networking :)
<youpi> teythoon: why leaving hurd's runsystem by default rather than
<youpi> ah, another issue, too, now that /dev/vcs appears in /proc/mounts,
  umountfs would umount it
<youpi> ideally umountfs would not umount passive translators
<youpi> we could blacklist /dev/vcs in umountfs, but the same issue would
  happen for user-defined translators in their own home, for instance

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-30

<gnu_srs> booting with the new sysvinit and openrc versions: works:), but
  only in recovery mode:-( Hangs before INIT: version 2.88 booting
<gnu_srs> after start ext2fs: Hurd server bootstrap: ext2fs[device:hd0s1]
  exec init proc authtask c1120dc8 deallocating an invalid port 134517370,
  most probably a bug.
<gnu_srs> related or an openrc problem? will test with sysv-rc
<youpi> I don't have such issue with sysv-rc
<gnu_srs> k!
<gnu_srs> shouldn't recovery mode mean starting in runlevel 1, I get
  runlevel 2?
<youpi> it should
<pere> gnu_srs: recovery mode normally mean single user, which is between
  rcS and rc2
<gnu_srs> I get INIT: Entering runlevel: 2
<pere> rcS.d should really have been named rcboot.d, as that is really what
  it is.
<youpi> ah, right, recovery is not single
<youpi> (single as in init 1)
<pere> runlevel 1 is not single user either.  it is more a gateway into
  single user.  see /etc/init.d/single to see what happen at the end of
  runlevel 1.
<gnu_srs> init 1 and init 2 seems to work
<gnu_srs> well, the openrc dependency loop detector has found an init
  script loop, maybe it has to be fixed?
<gnu_srs> disabling the hurd console solved the dependency loop problems,
  thanks openrc;-)
<gnu_srs> (have to dig deeper to see where the loop is, and how to solve

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-31

<gnu_srs> Hi, does the hurd console work with sysv-rc: In operc I get with
  #console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd --repeat=kbd -d
  generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs
<gnu_srs> console: Console library initialization failed: Not a directory
<teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, it works with sysvrc
<teythoon> gnu_srs: check that /dev/vcs has the appropriate translator
<gnu_srs> showtrans /dev/vcs: empty on another box: /hurd/console
<teythoon> yes, fix that and your console will be fine
<gnu_srs> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console?
<gnu_srs> or should it be active?
<teythoon> no, set an passive translator record so that this will be
<gnu_srs> something is wrong: when starting the hurd console screen is
  blanked (and hangs)
<gnu_srs> can I get the hurd console when running with the serial console
  (to see boot messages)?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, yuo can
<gnu_srs> will try that image then, tks:)
<gnu_srs> teythoon: how to create all underlying directories? ls /dev/vcs:
  1 2 3 4 5 6
<teythoon> don't, /hurd/console takes care of that
<gnu_srs> is settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console correct?
<teythoon> yes
<sjbalaji> What are those underlying directories representing ?
<teythoon> the hurd console is a console multiplexer
<teythoon> bringing multiple virtual consoles to the hurd
<teythoon> # showtrans /dev/tty1
<teythoon> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console
<gnu_srs> aha:  console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd
  --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs
<gnu_srs> task c1120e70 deallocating an invalid port 1782, most probably a
<sjbalaji> teythoon: Is it that /dev/tty1 has multiple translators ?
<teythoon> no
<teythoon> exactly one translator is bound to any given node in the vfs
<gnu_srs> something is strange with the hurd console: booting with it
  enabled still runs the mach console, halting:
<teythoon> what is strange about taht ?
<gnu_srs> when starting the hurd console:  task c1120e70 deallocating an
  invalid port 1782, most probably a bug.
<teythoon> so ?
<gnu_srs> and the paste when halting: twice
<teythoon> that is a known issue
<gnu_srs> with the hurd console?
<teythoon> how do you know it's the hurd console ?
<teythoon> that message comes from the kernel
<teythoon> currently, it is not possible to tell which process is
<teythoon> b/c the task is given as a pointer to the kernel task structure
<teythoon> not as a pid
<gnu_srs> I don't ,it is triggered by it at least
<teythoon> currently there is no way to map the former to the latter
<teythoon> why do you think it's a problem ? is something not working as
  expected ?
<gnu_srs> maybe a reproducible way to hunt that bug!
<teythoon> we have one already
<teythoon> it happens every time the hurd boots
<gnu_srs> yes, hurd console does not start, even when enabled:-(
<teythoon> then please say so ;)
<gnu_srs> I did:  (11:23:30) srs: something is strange with the hurd
  console: booting with it enabled still runs the mach console, halting:
<teythoon> where do you say that the hurd console did not start ?
<gnu_srs> maybe it is easier to hunt the bug in an already booted system
<teythoon> you just said that the mach console is still active, wich it is
  even if the hurd console starts
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> please start the hurd console by hand
<teythoon> -d current_vcs -c /dev/vcs -d vga -d pc_kbd --keymap us
  --repeat=kbd -d pc_mouse --protocol=ps/2 --repeat=mouse
<teythoon> err
<teythoon> /bin/console -d current_vcs -c /dev/vcs -d vga -d pc_kbd
  --keymap us --repeat=kbd -d pc_mouse --protocol=ps/2 --repeat=mouse
<gnu_srs> when I log in I have the mach console not the hurd console
<teythoon> yes, log in as root, then run that command
<gnu_srs> I've done that: (11:10:27) srs: aha:  console -d vga -d pc_mouse
  --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs
<gnu_srs> please read?
<teythoon> and you discovered in that process that /dev/vcs lacked a
  translator record
<teythoon> did you run it again after fixing that ?
<gnu_srs> the reply was: (11:10:27) srs: task c1120e70 deallocating an
  invalid port 1782, most probably a bug.
<teythoon> well, if you are feeling that what i ask you to do is
  unreasonable, i'm not sure how i can help you
<gnu_srs> yes, the translator was running!
<teythoon> you could hunt down the port deallocation bug, that'd be awesome
  and most welcomed
<teythoon> but i don't believe it is causing your console malfunction
<gnu_srs> I did what you asked for??
<gnu_srs> I'll do it again!
<gnu_srs> ok, now I don't get that error, but still no hurd console? the
  process is running, logging out and then in, no hurd console.
<gnu_srs> not possible in serial console?
<teythoon> no, the hurd console is displayed using the graphic card
<teythoon> you asked for that with -d vga ;)
<teythoon> not sure if there are any other display drivers
<teythoon> when you asked whether you can use the serial line, i assumed
  you used both qemus graphic terminal and a serial console
<teythoon> try kvm ... -serial telnet::1236,server,nowait, then use telnet
  localhost 1236 to connect to the serial console
<teythoon> then, you can start the hurd console over the serial console and
  see whether that worked
<gnu_srs> OK; that's what I asked before. I tried with the graphic one,
  I'll try again
<gnu_srs> telnet output is empty
<gnu_srs> frozen
<teythoon> did you start a getty there ?
<gnu_srs> in hurd?
<teythoon> b/c if you dropped the console=com0 argument from you gnumach
  command line, the mach console will be put on the vga screen, not on the
  serial console
<gnu_srs> I dropped  console=com0 from grub.cfg, yes
<teythoon> ok
<teythoon> so simply no one is talking to the serial port anymore
<teythoon> did you try to start the hurd console ?
<gnu_srs> I did before, can do  it again
<gnu_srs> startin the HC blanks the screen, and freezes the vga output:-(
  ssh still working
<teythoon> hm
<teythoon> try  ps Ax | grep tty, are there any term servers running for
  /dev/tty1..6 ?
<gnu_srs> lplenty of them: http://paste.debian.net/79442/
<teythoon> good, even gettys are there
<gnu_srs> and the console translator runs
<teythoon> hm
<gnu_srs> root  1224     5 7 months /hurd/console
<gnu_srs> root  1227  1226 7 months /bin/console -d vga -d pc_mouse
  pc_mouse -d pc_kb...
<teythoon> yes, everything looks good
<teythoon> just to be sure, you are currently using the qemus graphical
  frontend, right ?
<gnu_srs> yes
<teythoon> hm :/
<teythoon> gnu_srs: do you see loginpr processes ?
<gnu_srs> nope
<teythoon> hum
<teythoon> this strikes me as odd
<teythoon> on my system, i see no gettys but only loginpr processes
<teythoon> this is b/c the hurd getty does little other than to print some
  text and run the login program
<teythoon> but on your system the getty sticks around
<teythoon> is /sbin/getty really the hurd getty? it's easily recognized by
  its crappieness:
<teythoon> /sbin/getty --help || echo $?
<teythoon> 1
<gnu_srs> 1
<teythoon> hm
<teythoon> still funny though
<teythoon> you could try to run the hurd console, then run a getty manually
<teythoon> e.g. /sbin/getty 38400 tty1
<gnu_srs> from the ssh login?
<teythoon> yes
<gnu_srs> then the graphic display is back showing the loin prompt:P
<teythoon> weird
<teythoon> well, so most things work
<teythoon> that's a good thing
<teythoon> funny that hurds getty should get stuck like this
<gnu_srs> and the terminal is hurd:-)
<teythoon> any chance you can produce a stack trace of one of your getty
  processes ?
<gnu_srs> how?
<teythoon> gdb --pid=the_pid /sbin/getty
<teythoon> then, do bt like usual
<gnu_srs> so you mean tty2-6 are broken?
<teythoon> no
<teythoon> it's just for some reason your gettys do not behave nicely when
  run from init
<gnu_srs> from running tty2: bt #0  0x01087b09 in ?? ()
<gnu_srs> #1  0x00000000 in ?? ()
<gnu_srs> not much
<teythoon> hm :/
<teythoon> indeed
<teythoon> our getty logs to syslog, can you see anythign of interest here
<gnu_srs> Jan 31 12:00:46 debian-openrc-20140123 rsyslogd-2066: could not
  load module '/usr/lib/rsyslog/imklog.so', dlopen:
  /usr/lib/rsyslog/imklog.so: undefined symbol: klogAfterRun
<gnu_srs>  [try http://www.rsyslog.com/e/2066 ]
<gnu_srs> nothing tty releated
<teythoon> gnu_srs: oh, i just noticed, please look into auth.log, the
  getty stuff ends up there
<gnu_srs> teythoon: http://paste.debian.net/79465/
<teythoon> well, that is interesting :)
<gnu_srs> /dev/tty1 not a directory?
<teythoon> for instance, yes
<teythoon> it says bad syntax if it was invoked in the wrong way, i.e. not
  with exactly two arguments
<teythoon> that might have been you yourself, right ?
<teythoon> with getty --help i mean
<teythoon> for the not a directory message, please verify that
<teythoon> # showtrans /dev//tty1
<teythoon> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console
<teythoon> and stat /dev/vcs/1/console says it's a character special file
<gnu_srs> I used exactly: /sbin/getty --help || echo $?
<teythoon> yes, that accounts for that bad syntax message
<gnu_srs> what so bad about that?
<gnu_srs>  showtrans /dev//tty1
<gnu_srs> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console
<teythoon> getty is so simple minded that it doesn't really parse its
<gnu_srs> stat: http://paste.debian.net/79469/
<teythoon> looks nice
<teythoon> everything looks nice, i'm at my wits end here
<gnu_srs> and everything works OK with sysv-rc?
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> by the way, are you using the sysvinit init scripts or something
  openrc related ?
<gnu_srs> openrc use all the scripts in /etc/init.d
<teythoon> actually, could you try to kill -HUP 1 ?
<gnu_srs> BTW: the dependency loop detector has found many loops in those
<gnu_srs>  kill -HUP 1: nothing happens
<teythoon> ok, try to kill one of those gettys and see if the one that
  respawns works
<teythoon> then again, the getty should try to reopen the device every
  minute until it succeeds
<gnu_srs> getty tty1 and tty2 disappeared? kill -HUP tty3 respawns
<gnu_srs> now no getty processes are left?
<gnu_srs> /dev//tty4: Not a directory etc?
<teythoon> sorry, i should have expressed myself more clearly
<teythoon> kill -HUP 1 sends a SIGHUP to sysvinit, this makes it reload
  it's configuration
<teythoon> when i said kill some getty, i meant just kill some_pid
<teythoon> when you said 'kill -HUP tty3 respawns immediately', did you
  mean you killed the getty that was listening on /dev/tty3, and then a new
  one appeared and you got a login prompt at tty3 ?
<gnu_srs> a new pid appeared, the login prompt is on tty1
<gnu_srs> this one? /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console
<teythoon> i'd like to invite you to look at daemons/getty.c
<gnu_srs> not a big piece of code: anything specific?
<teythoon> no, just look what it roughly does
<gnu_srs> not a directory is not coming from that code
<teythoon> correct
<gnu_srs> it execl-s login
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> inevitably
<teythoon> but you do not observe this
<gnu_srs> how come when they are running?
<teythoon> this is the question that you will have to answer in order to
  make any progress
<gnu_srs> I killed only one of them:  kill -HUP 1031 and they all
<teythoon> i thought along these lines: the most obvious way to stall getty
  is if it never exits that loop
<teythoon> so i guessed it might be failing to open the device
<teythoon> we already observed that getty works fine if invoked by you
<teythoon> the question thus is, what is different when getty is invoked by
  init ?
<teythoon> if a process started by init in this way is killed, init will
  restart it
<teythoon> please note, that if anyone says kill that process, she means
  send a signal that results in process termination
<teythoon> and while sighup causes processes to die if the signal is not
  handled, it is not the ideal signal to kill processes
<teythoon> b/c some processes handle sighup
<teythoon> like sysvinit, which reloads its configuration
<teythoon> many daemons do this
<teythoon> see 'man 7 signal' for how signals affect processes
<gnu_srs> sorry, have to leave for now, bbl and thanks a LOT so far:)
<teythoon> ok :)
<teythoon> you are welcome :)
<gnu_srs> teythoon: I'm back but cannot spend to much time on this
  tonight. Maybe you should try it yourself, do you want another image on
  my box? 
<teythoon> it'd be nice if you put your packages somewhere
<gnu_srs> there are no special packages sysvinit  (-46) and openrc (-8)
<teythoon> surely openrc with some patches ?
<gnu_srs> from #openrc: (17:37:41) srs: start with sysvinit and make it
  work first!
<gnu_srs> (17:28:43) srs: zigo: Then I copied that working image to
  another, and changing hostname, and continued from there.
<gnu_srs> openrc with the hurd patches for /lib/rc/sh/init.sh (v8 should be
  available from experimental by now)
<teythoon> sweet :)
<teythoon> gnu_srs: maybe it was just some weird issue with your system
<teythoon> i just switched to openrc and everything seems to just work
<teythoon> i'll redo what i just did more cleanly to get a clean test vm...
<gnu_srs> nice:)
<gnu_srs> teythoon: And you got the hurd console?
<teythoon> heh, i believe so >,<
<teythoon> i didn't see it b/c i was using --nographic
<teythoon> but ps Ax looked alright
<teythoon> hrm
<teythoon> gnu_srs: i can reproduce your trouble, umount still strips the
  translator record from /dev/vcs
<teythoon> at system shutdown time
<gnu_srs> so that's the reason. Additionally I have to issue halt twice
  from a ssh login, see http://paste.debian.net/79517/
<teythoon> funny indeed
<teythoon> gnu_srs: i can reliably recover the hurd console by doing
<teythoon> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console && service hurd-console restart
  && pkill getty ; sleep 5 ; pkill getty
<teythoon> humm, as you say, halt doesn't work

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-01

<pere> I've just uploaded a new new sysvinit package to experimental, with
  all the latest hurd fixes.  

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-01

<gnu_srs> 17:53:28< teythoon> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console && service
  hurd-console restart && pkill getty ; sleep 5 ; pkill getty
<gnu_srs> teythoon: Any ideas on how to solve this?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, i have that on my todo list
<gnu_srs> so it is not an openrc problem?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: no

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-01

<teythoon> start ext2fs: Hurd server bootstrap: ext2fs[gunzip:device:rd0]
  exec init proc au
<teythoon> thtask with pid 6 deallocating an invalid port 134517370, most
  probably a bug.  
<teythoon> :)
<teythoon> pid 6 is exec o_O
<gnu_srs> teythoon: Nice to see that you added pid numbers for error
<gnu_srs> so the boot error comes from the exec sever?
<teythoon> so it seems
<gnu_srs> server*
<gnu_srs> have you found where?
<teythoon> no

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-02

<pere> but when I install the new packages, and run update-alternatives
  --config runsystem to select sysv, the boot fail with: start ext2fs: Hurd
  server bootstrap: ext2fs[device:hd0s1] exec init proc authtask c1128dc8
  deallocationg and invalid port 134517370, most probably a bug.
<pere> was that the wrong approach?
<pere> is there some way to recover when hurd fail to boot with sysvinit?
<pere> I was able to boot in recovery mode. :)
<pere> and this time sysvinit booted.  saw a segfault message just after
  sysvinit started, no idea what caused it.
<pere> looks like it is startpar that segfaults.
<pere> looks like the invalid port message come every time, no matter if
  the boot hang or not.
<pere> I was wrong.  it isn't startpar segfaulting, it is something in
<pere> bootlogd is the process segfaulting at boot.
<pere> looks like the boot success rate is 30% or so.
<pere> reported bootlogd problem as <URL: http://bugs.debian.org/737375 >.
  I really miss valgrind. :)
<teythoon> pere: yes, the invalid port message is from the exec server
<teythoon> pere: i see the hurd boot process hang sometimes, no matter if i
  use sysvinit or not
<teythoon> i believe it's a race condition in the ext2fs, not sure though
<pere> teythoon: but did the frequency of the hang go up with sysvinit or
  not? to me it seem like that.
<teythoon> pere: yes, i believe it got worse
<teythoon> what hangs is fsysopts --update /
<teythoon> runsystem.sysv does that quite early
<pere> able to debug it?
<pere> I like the fact that runsystem.sysv set up ip at boot time, while
  with .gnu, I have to run dhclient /dev/eth0 manually
<pere> it is quite confusing that hurd got two init processes with
  sysvinit.  one as pid 1, and another that seem to be the parent of all
  internal stuff.  perhaps the latter could be renamed to hurd-system or
  something like that?
<pere> "sleep 0.2 # Work around a race condition (probably in the root
  translator)." do not look too good...
<pere> (I increased from 0.1 to see if it help me. :)
<teythoon> did it ?
<teythoon> i plan to rename /hurd/init to /hurd/startup

hurd init.

<pere> nope. :)
<pere> five boots in a row hung. :(
<pere> still no go...
<teythoon> are you using a vm or real hardware ?
<pere> vm
<pere> kvm, via virt-manager, to be exact.
<teythoon> me too
<pere> on the sixt boot, after waiting a long time between try 5 and 6
  (gave up a bit), it booted.
<pere> sleep 1 did not help either.
<teythoon> :(
<teythoon> well, it's not *that* bad for me
<teythoon> in fact recently it has been a lot better
<teythoon> you might try my packages
<teythoon> pere: here http://darnassus.sceen.net/~teythoon/hurd-ci/
<pere> teythoon: tested it, and it seem to solve the problem.
<pere> is also rid of the strange error at the start.
<pere> teythoon: your packages even work without the sleep 0.1, at least
  some of the time. :)
<pere> hm, but the success rate without sleep 0.1 is very low.  I was able
  to boot once, and never again. :(
<teythoon> pere: yes, i fixed the spurious port allocation today :)
<teythoon> pere: nice to hear that the sleep 0.1 i put in does increase
  your chance to boot as well

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-02

<teythoon> gnu_srs: i found the spurious port deallocation :)
<gnu_srs> Cangrats:-D
<teythoon> trouble is, i introduced it >,<
<gnu_srs> Congrats*
<gnu_srs> Ah, you did?
<teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, in debian/patches/exec_filename_fix.patch
* teythoon . o O (diffs of diffs are trippy :)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-03

<braunr> teythoon: oh nice, you found that bug :)
<teythoon> braunr: yes, once i knew where to look it was easy to fix ;)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-05

<teythoon> i wonder why the port deallocation bug made the system hang when
  the libc was compiled with the newer gcc
<braunr> teythoon: so it was indeed the problem ?
<teythoon> braunr: youpi said so, yes
<braunr> oh right

experimental, glibc 2.18 vs. GCC 4.8?

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-03

<teythoon> :)
<teythoon> pere: sounds like your hurd-console isn't running and there is
  no getty on the mach console
<teythoon> pere: you could add sth like 8:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400
  console to your inittab
<pere> I'd rather wait until the hurd porters get it right in the debs. :)
<pere> I suspect upgrading the downloadable image to use the latest
  packages also would help a lot.
<pere> with upgraded packages, /proc is working and pstree, pkill, top, etc
  is working out of the box. :)

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-04

<pere> I just uploaded sysvinit with hurd support to unstable. :)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-04

<gnu_srs> teythoon: Hi, the segfault during boot is coming from bootlogd,
  see bug #737375
<gnu_srs> also the output on the console is from there: end_request: I/O
  error, dev 02:00, sector 0
<teythoon> gnu_srs: interesting :)
<teythoon> gnu_srs: i believe the end_request message comes from gnumach
<youpi> yes, that's just a floppy disk access attempt
<gnu_srs> might be so yes
<youpi> it's not a "might", it's sure :)
<youpi> dev 02:00 is the flopy
<gnu_srs> k!


IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-04

<zigo> Each time I upgrade my hurd box, I cannot login into it ...
<zigo> No login prompt.
<zigo> WTF is going on?
<zigo> How to fix?
<teythoon> zigo: most likely your hurd console is not running and there is no getty started for the mach console
<zigo> teythoon: How to fix? (note: I already have the partition mounted in a loopback)
<zigo> Or maybe go in recovery mode?
<teythoon> depends
<teythoon> do you use sysvinit ?
<teythoon> do you use the hurd packages from hurd-ci ?

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-05

<zigo> teythoon: Sorry, didn't see your reply. I just used the Hurd image,
  untar it, and apt-get update / dist-upgrade. That's it, nothing more or
<zigo> teythoon: I obviously would like to install sysvinit, and later
  OpenRC. That's the reason why I'm running Hurd: to make sure OpenRC works
  with it without issues.
<zigo> teythoon: It seems it "sometimes work" or what???
<zigo> I was able to repair it using the recovery mode, it seems.
<zigo> grrr...
<zigo> I got this issue again, again and again ...
<zigo> Sometimes, got the tty1, sometimes, it doesn't appear.
<zigo> That's REALLY frustrating.
<pere> zigo: and yes, the success rate for boot is not 100%.  it increases
  a bit by using the packages teythoon created at hurd-ci.
<pere> apparently some race condition somewhere.
<zigo> pere: So, I should just try and reboot again and again ?
<zigo> pere: Is it improving after switching to sysvinit?
<pere> once I had to boot six times before I got it running...
<pere> I was told that the race involves a call to fsysopts, and that the
  success rate with sysvinit was smaller because fsysopts command was
  called earlier. I can not confirm nor deny this.
<pere> with the latest packages from hurd-ci the success rate is almost
  100% again.
<zigo> pere: Where do get that?
<pere> zigo: see <URL:
<zigo> pere: What's the "update-alternatives --config runsystem" for?
<pere> to switch to sysvinit
<zigo> Right, that's what I was missing then! :)
<pere> the new sysvinit version in unstable was built for hurd one and a
  half hour ago.  so soon hurd users can skip experimental for that.
<zigo> pere: I've just succeeded in booting with OpenRC! :)
<zigo> Though this console pb is REAAAALLLYYYY getting on my nerves! :)
<zigo> Also, any idea why we don't get the nice colorfull output when
<zigo> When booting with OpenRC, I've noticed that the dependency loop
  detects some loops with the hurd-console thing.
<teythoon> zigo: good to hear that you got it working
<teythoon> the console problem is the following
<teythoon> when you shutdown using sysvinit, the system will run umount -a
<teythoon> it will then mistake some translators (like the one on /dev/vcs)
  for file systems and remove their passive translator records
<teythoon> you can fix this by running '/usr/lib/hurd/setup-translators -k
<teythoon> you can avoid it for the time being by using reboot-hurd or
<pere> teythoon: btw, how often is the hurd boot image available for
  download updated?
<teythoon> not very often
<zigo> teythoon: Can I run  '/usr/lib/hurd/setup-translators -k -p'
  mounting my hurd image in a chroot?
<zigo> Hum...
<zigo> Probably better to do that in the recovery mode, no? :)
<youpi> dpkg-reconfigure hurd 
<youpi> would be easier to type :)
<youpi> but we really need to fix that /dev/vcs unmounting
<pere> missing working getty and missing symlink from /run/mtab to
  /proc/mount are the most serious problems I still see.
<zigo> The recovery mode doesn't work with OpenRC ! :(
<zigo> (it does in kFreeBSD and Linux, not with hurd ...)
<zigo> What happens is that it continues to runlevel 2.
<zigo> How can I fix then?
<youpi> pere: missing working getty?
<youpi> I don't see what issue you are referring to
<youpi> about the missing symlink, I'm wondering what is supposed to add it
<youpi> zigo: I don't know if anybody investigated it yet
<pere> youpi: yes, after boot there is no login prompt.
* pere have no idea, suspect a script in initscripts.
<zigo> youpi: I'm reffering to the fact that I have no login prompt after
  boot, and that I don't know how to fix, since I don't have a recovery
  mode to my disposal anymore.
<youpi> pere: but is the console started?
<youpi> (I mean the hurd console)
<zigo> pere: I suspect a wrong dependency, which OpenRC by the way, prints.
<youpi> pere: otherwise, unless you have a /dev/console getty in
  /etc/inittab, it's expected you don't have a prompt
<youpi> zigo: add
<youpi> c:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console
<youpi> to your /etc/inittab
<teythoon> youpi: yes, we need to get that fixed
<youpi> grrrr
* youpi wanted to change the image file on people.d.o
<youpi> but I can't do that without downloading it on my laptop, to be able
  to modify it
<youpi> I would have been, if people was a hurd system :)
<teythoon> the proper way to fix this is to implement the get_source stuff
  and get rid of the heuristic in mtab.c
<pere> youpi: nope, no console process running.
<youpi> then that's why, /dev/vcs got unmounted
<pere> I already have a console getty in inittab.  got it from the last
  sysvinit package
* youpi should have brown-bag-fixed these bugs before this week-end
    actually  :)
<youpi> pere: but you don't get a getty prompt on the mach console? I don't
  understand why
<youpi> it does work for me
<teythoon> brown-bag-fixed ?
<zigo> youpi: Adding that in /etc/inittab didn't fix anything.
<youpi> yes, ugly hacks uploaded to debian-ports
<youpi> zigo: even with rebooting?
<youpi> could you snapshot your screen so we can make sure what you are
  actually  getting?
<zigo> youpi: I did it mounting my partition in a loopback...
<zigo> Then booted up, and still couldn't see the console prompt.
<youpi> ok, but please take a snapshot, so we are sure what is actually
<youpi> whether the console starts, etc.
<pere> that info passed out of the screen and is not shown after my boot,
  at least.
<youpi> which info?
<youpi> again, please take a snapshot of the screen
<youpi> otherwise we are just guessing, and that's never good for debugging
<zigo> Maybe you'll find this interesting: http://paste.debian.net/80246/
<zigo> This is the output of OpenRC booting and detecting dependency loops
  in the LSB header scripts.
<pere> youpi: the info about the console being started or not.  I'll show
  you, give me a minute.
<youpi> zigo: well, that shouldn't be more problems than the dependency
  loop already existing between rc.local and rmnologin
<pere> youpi: any loop is a fatal problem.
<youpi> how come the rc.local vs rmnologin is not a problem ?
<zigo> With sysv-rc in Debian, there's all sorts of loops that are just
<pere> I have not seen that loop on my linux system, so I am unsure what
  you talk about.
<youpi> (the actual issues is simply that all three use Required-start:
  $all, and thus all depend on each other)
<zigo> That's a huge pb IMO.
<youpi> pere: well, 
<pere> zigo: show me one?  
<youpi> rc.local:# Required-Start:    $all
<youpi> rmnologin:# Required-Start:    $remote_fs $all
<zigo> Yeah, the $all is just *bad*.
<pere> that is no loop.
<zigo> I do believe we should implement a lintian warning about it.
<pere> sure, $all do not behave the way most people expect, and should be
  avoided as much as possible.
<pere> any other loops?
<youpi> no
<youpi> (not that I know of)
<pere> youpi: sending you the screenshot via irc.
<youpi> uh, long time no use dcc send, I don't even know where it sent it
  to :o)
<pere> ok. aborting and trying another approach.
<pere> http://www.picpaste.com/booted-herd.png
<youpi> ok, so boot didn't actually finish
<youpi> that's why you don't get gettys or hurd-console (which is last)
<youpi> there must be some init script hanging in the meanwhile
<pere> logging in via ssh show no running startpar process, so I doubt that
  is the case.
<pere> syslog contain this: Feb  5 10:10:27 hurdtest console[808]: Console
  library initialization failed: Not a directory
<youpi> that is due to /dev/vcs not mounted
<youpi> but that should have not prevented the boot from completing...
<pere> the boot is completed, as far as I can tell.
<youpi> you can disable the hurd console in /etc/defaults/hurd-console
<youpi> do you have gettys running?
<pere> no such file.
<youpi> oops, -s
<pere> http://paste.debian.net/80251/
<teythoon> pere: check your /etc/inittab, is there a getty for the mach
  console ?
<youpi> he said yes earlier
<teythoon> oh ok
<teythoon> i wonder why it doesn't show up then
<youpi> same for me
<teythoon> if the getty cannot open the device, it will loop
<pere> ah, I was wrong.  the inittab is not the one I thought.  the current
  one is after a reinstall, while I checked the content before that.
<teythoon> pere: check /var/log/auth.log
<pere> there is indeed no console entry in /etc/inittab.  I thought it
  would be copied into place during upgrades?
<teythoon> not if it exists
<teythoon> iirc
<youpi> indeed
<pere> ah, great.  "cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab  /etc/inittab" and a
  reboot fixed it. :)
<youpi> phew :)
<pere> it really should try harder to update the inittab on hurd to a
  working one.
<teythoon> didn't i do something like this to fix the getty path ?
<pere> yes.  that was the code I expected to solve this.
<teythoon> it didn't work ?
<pere> well, I had the wrong inittab file...
<pere> btw, do hurd have the needed syscalls for bootlogd to work?
<teythoon> i haven't looked at bootlogd yet
<pere> would be nice to have a text dump of the boot when trying to figure
  out what went wrong.
<teythoon> yes, that'd be nice

<youpi> pere: could you blacklist /dev/vcs in umountfs, just like already
  done for /proc|/dev|/.dev etc. ?
<youpi> so at least that case, which is really problematic, gets fixed now,
  and not have to wait for another, more hurdish solution
<pere> youpi: just send patches to bts, and I'll pick it up from there.
<teythoon> nice. i'll work on the proper solution. bbl
<rleigh> teythoon: Can we add those translators to the exclusion lists in
<rleigh> Sorry, I just noticed youpi's comment.  I'm a bit behind.
<heroxbd> rleigh: good to see you! are you back to the keyboard? fully
<rleigh> Not quite fully, but on the mend, thanks!
<heroxbd> :]
<pere> rleigh: yeah, good to see you again.  I got a burst of energy and
  brushed a bit on sysvinit in your absence. :)  Even revitalized the
  #pkg-sysvinit channel. :)
<rleigh> pere: Yes, I saw all the commit emails flying by!
<rleigh> I realistically won't be doing much for several weeks at least
  though, I'm afraid.
<pere> no worries. spend your time getting well.   :)  it would be great to
  have you on #pkg-sysvinit, though. :)
<rleigh> I'll join, no worries.  I should add it to my irssi config so I
  can't forget!
<heroxbd> teythoon: serial console always works, right? no matter how
  hurd-console behaves.
<teythoon> heroxbd: yes
<teythoon> but you need a getty on it
<youpi> well, just like on linux :)
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> almost
<teythoon> on mach, we have the mach console. by default that is put on the
  vga screen, but you can make mach put it on a serial port using the
  gnumach command line flag console=comX
<youpi> well, just like on linux :)
<heroxbd> understood, thanks!
<teythoon> oh, i didn't realize linux has this as well
<heroxbd> teythoon: you'll use it a lot on a embedded system
<heroxbd> an*
<teythoon> ok

<gg0> plus, seems it can't cleanly umount /, at boot it fsck's it, fixes it
  and auto-reboot
<youpi> it's odd that / doesn't get unmounted, don't you get a message at
  "notifying ext2fs device:hd0s1 of shutown" ?
<gg0> on console last 3 lines on halt are
<gg0> Deactivating swap...swapoff: /dev/hd0s5: 4193208k swap space
<gg0> done.
<gg0> Unmounting local filesystems...done.
<gg0> INIT: no more processes left in this runlevel
<youpi> is this on reboot or on halt?
<gg0> halt
<youpi> then you should also be getting the "notifying" messages, as well
  as "In tight loop: hit ctl-alt-del to reboot" message
<gg0> it umounts uncleanly on reboot too
<youpi> if you don't wait for these, there's little wonder it's not
  properly unmounted
<gg0> i waited many seconds, time to rewrite 3 lines above for you for
  instance (not a fast typist)
<gg0> on reboot it's harder but iirc they don't appear as well
* gg0 rebooting again
<gg0> need to wait it finishes fsck'ing
<gg0> (i should resoldering my serial cable to get back to lazily c&p)
<gg0> -ing
<gg0> many Give root password messages then
<gg0> Give root password for maintenance
<gg0> (or type Control-d to continue):
<gg0> INIT: Id "z6" respawning too fast: disabled for 5 minutes
<gg0> INIT: no more processes left in this runlevel
<gg0> i'll wait 5 mins to see what happen
<gg0> ok another dozen of Give root password and same couple of INIT above
<gg0> no, just the first INIT
<youpi> so z6 doesn't work
<youpi> i.e. /sbin/sulogin (see /etc/inittab)
<youpi> check out why that is

discussion, IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-25, coreutils' df.

<youpi> [...] depends on coreutils actually building
<youpi> which depends on putting back a login package from the shadow
  source package
<pere> are someone on that task?
<youpi> no idea
<youpi> IIRC I've mentioned the issue on the lists like months ago
<youpi> but probably nobody took the tas
<youpi> k
<youpi> basically it means fixing any bug that login or su from the login
  package would have
<youpi> and then properly handle the migration from hurd-provided versions
  to login-provided versions
<youpi> and then we would be able to build coreutils
<pere> which BTS report is this?
<youpi> I don't know if any report has been written about it
<youpi> perhaps simplest would be to build the login package, but not its
<youpi> it seems hurd's getty uses special options of hurd'slogin
<youpi> that's probably the easiest way to go

<gg0> sulogin seems to work fine but it shouldn't even called:
<gg0> # Normally not reached, but fallthrough in case of emergency.
<gg0> z6:6:respawn:/sbin/sulogin
<gg0> +be
<pere> I suspect a good fix is to provide a new init.d script in the hurd
  package adding the symlink for hurd.

<gg0> umountfs gets stuck at "Will now umount local filesystem:settrans
  -apgf /lib/rc/init.d"

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-05

<gnu_srs> teythoon: Any ideas why I have to issue halt/reboot twice to make
  the command succeed (from ssh login)
<gnu_srs> Is it the same issue with sysv-rc? 
<teythoon> no
<gnu_srs> BTW: The segfault when booting came from bootlogd (wrong
  parameters, Linux/~Linux), removing that one fixed it;-)

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-06

<youpi> teythoon: we really need to find the boot issue for which you added
  a sleep 0.1 in runsystem.sysv
<youpi> apparently I had to move it above the mach-defpager startup, to get
  a system that boots most of the time...

<azeem> did somebody look at
<braunr> azeem: interesting
<azeem> braunr: was mentioned here: http://lwn.net/Articles/584428/
<azeem> " Systemd won't work for them, that's for sure, but nosh as a
  systemd unit file compatible alternative could. "
<braunr> "I'm also very interested in seeing a discussion where the Debian
  Hurd and BSD porters weigh in for themselves"

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-06

<gg0> on halt/reboot it can't remount readonly root because it's busy, what
  makes it busy?
<gg0> by keeping /lib/rc/init.d mounted (like /dev/vcs) it shuts down
<youpi> I don't know about such directory
<gg0> so seems that failed readonly remount is not a real problem because
  at the end it runs halt-hurd/reboot-hurd which umount root properly
<youpi> yes
<gg0> afaiu it's a tmpfs where openrc copies "itself", kind of work
<gg0> by removing it, it can't continue working
<gg0> at boot some messages are about its creation/population
<pere> why do init.d/hurd-console depend on $all?  In most cases, depending
  on $all is not giving you want you expect.
<youpi> because we prefer to start the console (and thus clear all the
  screen) only after the boot has finished
<youpi> otherwise the console output will be messed up by the end of the
  boot messages
<teythoon> youpi: there has to be a better way
<teythoon> b/c the way it is now, if one spawns a getty on the mach
  console, it will mess up the hurd console as well
<youpi> well, we do want mach messages printed even with the hurd console,
  at least
<teythoon> i once thought that instead of printing them the kernel could
  send messages to a registered userspace daemon that could e.g. send them
  to syslog
<youpi> that requires syslog to be working at all
<pere> changing $all to $local_fs seem to work fine here.
<youpi> when the kernel cries out, we'd better always be able to hear it :)
<youpi> pere: but then you have the bootup messages in the middle of the
  console, don't you?
<pere> not as far as I can tell. look just the same as before.
<youpi> well, on my box it seems that it gets to start after other daemons,
  by luck
<youpi> ah, perhaps getty actually clears the tty?
<youpi> then that would be ok
<teythoon> youpi: i don't think it does
<youpi> well, somehow something clears the output at least
<teythoon> i thought he hurd console does this
<youpi> it does on startup, yes
<youpi> but if it starts before other daemons
<youpi> the damons startup output gets over it
<youpi> one sees the console clear the screen, then get daemon startup
  messages, and then the screen gets cleared again before the login prompt
<teythoon> interesting, i haven't seen this happening
<youpi> it seems like it happens when emitting text on /dev/tty1, the
  console will then clear the screen to make the way for the new output
<youpi> and since that happens on getty startup, it happens to be after all
  daemon startup
<youpi> yes, that's what happens
<youpi> so considering this, I'm fine with starting the console earlier
<youpi> getting a display glitch seems to have been acceptable on Linux for
  years :)
<youpi> (during boot, I mean)
<teythoon> ok

<gg0> anyone else tried openrc?
<gg0> 15:20 < pere> yes, it did not umount properly.
<gg0> 15:36 < gg0> reboot or halt? it takes few seconds to actually
  reboot/halt since the last message from openrc
<gg0> 15:39 < gg0> any typo adding such path?
* gg0 likes cross-channel pasting
<gg0> anyone else keeps getting unclean umounts even after applying
  http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/ ?
<teythoon> gg0: yes, me. worked fine, it didn't shut down properly though
<gg0> here works like a charm
<gg0> what do you mean by properly?
<gg0> i see first it can't remount root readonly but at least by not umount
  path in question it continues executing scripts till actually shut it
  down with something like {halt,reboot}-hurd
<gg0> *not umounting
<gg0> *shutting
<teythoon> for me it did not shut down
<gg0> you mean don't you get classic press ctrl+alt+canc to reboot message?
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> from my perspective (and from /hurd/init's), that's not shutting
<teythoon> as in it did not call reboot(2)
<gg0> what are configuration not to miss besides switching runsystem to
  sysv one?
<gg0> *configuration steps
<teythoon> no idea, i did nothing else but to switch to runsystem.sysv and
  to install openrc thus replacing sysv-rc
<gg0> can you paste shutdown messages somewhere?
<teythoon> sure
<gg0> .o(world is failing, /me can't debug teythoon :))
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/hidden/745071e6/
<gg0> in my case i just found out that /etc/init.d/umountfs tries to umount
  /lib/rc/init.d where openrc scripts are
<gg0> what if you set VERBOSE and print REG_MTPTS? something like
<gg0> there i got "settrans -apfg /lib/rc/init.d" which vanished with first
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80573/
<gg0> ok and if you apply first patch http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/
<gg0> i.e. adding |/lib/rc/init.d to mount point to ignore
<teythoon> didn't help
<gg0> well output should change though
<teythoon> it does
<teythoon> but it still does not shut down
<gg0> paste please then
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80576/
<teythoon> what did you expect ?
<gg0> did you unapply VERBOSE & print REG_MTPTS?
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> no
<teythoon> well
<gg0> seems you do, if VERBOSE is set, it prints Will now unmount local
<teythoon> i restored a vm snapshot, and applied both patches
<gg0> instead of "Unmounting local filesystems"
<gg0> *seems you did
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80577/
<teythoon> shall i do it again ?
<gg0> and what after "root@debian:/# halt" ? :p
<teythoon> 23:55 < teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80576/
<teythoon> and openrc shouting lots of stuff about breaking dependencies
<gg0> please yes do it again
<gg0> if VERBOSE is set, it prints "Will now unmount local filesystems"
  instead of "Unmounting local filesystems"
<teythoon> yes, you are right
<teythoon> still, it does not work
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80579/
<gg0> i'm curious about the new REG_MTPTS, supposing /lib/rc/init.d has
  been suppressed
<gg0> ok stop
<gg0> 23:47 < gg0> ok and if you apply first patch
<teythoon> i did
<teythoon> well, i added that path
<gg0> i don't believe so, it should ignore it if added
<teythoon> did it fix the issue for you ?
<gg0> yes
<gg0> any typo in addition?
<gg0> obviously patch is against sysvinit source but you have to apply it
  to /etc/init.d/umountfs
<teythoon> obviously
<gg0> isn't it time to tell me you are kidding me yet?
<youpi> pere: thanks for the upload. I happened to realized that since it
  was in collab-maint, I could as well just commit changes, I hope it's ok?
<teythoon> gg0: root@debian:~# fgrep '/lib/rc/init.d' /etc/init.d/umountfs
<gg0>  /dev/vcs is missing, not the latest sysvinit version
<gg0> could this affect shutdown?
<teythoon> i know
<teythoon> possibly
<gg0> what if you also add /dev/vcs to path list?
<teythoon> what then ?
<teythoon> i don't mind /dev/vcs being 
<teythoon> err, 'umounted'
<teythoon> i can handle that just fine
<gg0> i mean what happens if you add /dev/vcs to path list in
  /etc/init.d/umountfs as you did with /lib/rc/init.d?
<gg0> what happens = how it shutdown
<teythoon> why would it be any different ?
<gg0> no idea, seems the only change you don't have
<gg0> i just know it fixes hurd console
<teythoon> i know it fixes the hurd console b/c i was the one who broke the
  hurd console in the first place ...
<gg0> quite sure there's something wrong on your side
<gg0> if it's actually among those path to ignore, it can't be added to
<gg0> my /proc/mounts http://paste.debian.net/plain/80583
<gg0> yours?
<gg0> i hope i'm not forgetting one change i did around
<gg0> teythoon: /proc/mounts ?

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-07

<gg0> teythoon: sorry for pasting reversed patches
<gg0> please apply http://paste.debian.net/plain/80587, halt and paste
  output + /proc/mounts
<pere> youpi: just fine.  but please join us on #pkg-sysvinit and make sure
  to follow the mailing lists.
<teythoon> gg0: no, sorry, i was perfectly able to use -R on your patches,
  as demonstrated by the paste i send
<teythoon> i think i'll rather just wait for the next sysvinit package and
  try it again
<gg0> teythoon: i don't doubt you are able, i'm sorry because i messed up
<gg0>  /lib/rc/init.d should not go in $REG_MTPTS
<gg0> sysvinit 2.88dsf-48 just add /dev/vcs to not-to-umount paths and make
  boot consider -s for single user, nothing about umounting filesystems on
<pere> the /lib/rc/init.d/ change to umountfs seem to be the wrong one, as
  it do not solve the problem for me.  because of this, I have not applied
  it to git.
<gg0> pere: could you try to apply http://paste.debian.net/plain/80587,
  halt and paste output?
<gg0> well it applies to teythoon who doesn't have /dev/vcs
<gg0> */dev/vcs change
<gg0> pere: this one applies to -48
  installed. http://paste.debian.net/plain/80615/
<gg0> given /lib/rc/init.d is added to not-to-umount paths it can't go in
<pere> http://picpaste.com/halt-hurd-DVEVoHnr.png
<gg0> pere: you didn't apply it
<gg0> no messages from umountfs
<gg0> which is even more weird
<pere> well, patch claimed it did.
<gg0> normally it says "Unmounting local filesystems..."
<pere> checked the file, patch is applied.
<gg0> ok i think i got it
<gg0> patch is good. it just requires booting twice _and_ removing
  non-patched /etc/init.d/umountfs.* if any
<gg0> patch = adding /lib/rc/init.d
<gg0> so
<pere> which files do you need to remove?
<gg0>  /etc/init.d/umountfs.* and /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs.*
<gg0> do you have any?
<gg0> you should just have patched umountfs under both /etc/init.d/ and
<gg0> the latter is populate at boot, that's why i said twice to become
<gg0> *populated
<gg0> but propably /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs can be fixed on the fly
<gg0> from start:
<pere> why do you need to remove these files?
<gg0> 1/ patch /etc/init.d/umountfs by adding /lib/rc/init.d to
  not-to-umount path list
<pere> why are these files not ignored?
<gg0> 2/ remove /etc/init.d/umountfs.* if any (eg. .orig .new .whatever)
<gg0> pere: because it loads them at boot, you need it loads just the right
<gg0> 3/ reboot twice
<gg0> (3/ halt twice)
<pere> this sound very fishy to me.
<gg0> or 3/ fix umountfs files under /lib/rc/init.d/started as well
<gg0> that should make it shutdown properly right away
<pere> my halt still hang.
<gg0> pere: you have /lib/rc/init.d in both /etc/init/umountfs and
  /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs and there are no umountfs.* around?
<gg0> problem seems to be it picks first it finds if there are more than
<gg0> well i could have been more precise: /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs
  is a link to /etc/init.d one
<gg0> btw there must be just one and only one umountfs, patched
<gg0> pere: clean /etc/init.d, reboot/halt with reboot-hurd or halt-hurd,
  then next sysv reboot/halt will be good
<gg0> you just need to leave patched umountfs under /etc/init.d alone
<gg0> patch has always been good, it just needs 2 reboots to be appreciated
<gg0> pere: do you have other /etc/init/umountfs* files besides patched
<gg0> my guess is it takes the first and only the first which Provides:
<gg0> 12:17 < pere> why are these files not ignored?
<gg0> 12:35 < gg0> my guess is it takes the first and only the first which
  Provides: umountfs
<gg0> to confirm that, if you have umountfs and umountfs.orig, under
  /started you'll find just umountfs.orig
<gg0> pere: how goes?
<gg0> teythoon: last ~40 lines
<gg0> i'm assuming you have any else umountfs.* under /etc/init.d. if you
  just add /lib/rc/init.d path to the only umountfs there should not be any
<pere> gg0: removing the umountfs.* files did not help, as far as I can
<pere> are you telling me that openrc caches all init.d scripts in
  /lib/rc/init.d/ at boot?
<gg0> pere: yes, you can see them. which umountfs* do you have under
  /lib/rc/init.d ?
<pere> the right one. :)
<gg0> only the right one?
<pere> just scared me to know that changes on the disk do not take effect
  immediately with openrc.
<gg0> pere: only the right one?
<pere> yes
<gg0> here i screwed it up by forcing initscripts removal and reinstall to
  reproduce it, then fixed it once again
<gg0> i should just improving the explaination :)
<gg0> pere: "removing the umountfs.* files did not help," so did you find
<pere> yes, both .orig, .rej and .dpkg-old
<gg0> pere: ok you should find one of them linked under
  /lib/rc/init.d/started then
<gg0>  /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs.*
<pere> I removed them three boots ago.  still halt hangs.
<gg0> pere: and current umountfs have /lib/rc/init.d in path list?
<gg0> *has
<pere> yes.
<gg0> pere: can you access via ssh to it before issuing halt?
<pere> that is how I access it normally.
<gg0> ok
<gg0> before halt df should list /lib/rc/init.d as well
<gg0> after halt it should not, do you confirm that?
<gg0> (ssh connection here is kept alive)
<pere> my ssh connection went down, but /lib/rc/init.d was mounted while it
  was active.
<pere> to me it look like umountfs isn't executed at all during shutdown.
<pere> oh, well.  got to work on other things now. :)
<gg0> it's correct getting no messages if there no filesystem to umount
<gg0> as it wouldn't be run at all
<zigo> pere: Hey, thanks for uploading sysv-rc -48 ! :)
<pere> you are welcome. :)
<gg0> i can't reproduce it on a VM :/ http://paste.debian.net/plain/80658/
<gg0> ehm no, same machive, successive halt
<gg0> got stuck
<pere> are there any testet sysvinit patches for hurd lingering?  I plan to
  upload a new version tonight or tomorrow.

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-08

<gg0> http://paste.debian.net/plain/80854/
<gg0> expected?
<gg0> do tmpfs and procfs need to be shown as types /hurd/tmpfs and
<gg0> or can they be "normalized"?
<gg0> domount mount_noupdate tmpfs shmfs /run tmpfs
<gg0> another one is why on linux options are nosuid,noexec ^, whereas on
  hurd no-suid,no-exec,... ?
<rleigh> gg0: If they need generalising, we can add $nosuid/$noexec
  etc. variables to mount-functions.sh and set them appropriately for the
  currently platform.
<rleigh> current platform rather
<gg0> yeah, i ask just to understand what side people prefers modifying, in
  this case hurd vs sysvinit
<gg0> btw in the meanwhile i got tmpfs takes options without '-' though it
  shows them with '-' in proc/mounts
<gg0> rleigh: and thanks for pointing out what looking for, little hints
  saves hours in my case :)
[IRC connection closed]

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-08

<youpi> gnu_srs: the -49 version of sysvinit contains a fix for bootlogd

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-09

<gnu_srs> (16:31:17) <youpi>: gnu_srs: the -49 version of sysvinit contains
  a fix for bootlogd
<gnu_srs> Nice for kFreeBSD, for Hurd it doesn't matter if we get a
  segfault or an error code saying it's not implemented :-(
<youpi> segfault vs error code is really not the same
<youpi> iirc bootlogd would ignore the error
<gnu_srs> Nevertheless, bootlogd is not usable on Hurd :( 
<youpi> then fix it

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-08

<rleigh> gg0: If the sames are set by hurd itself, then it makes sense to
  adapt sysvinit to cope with that rather than altering hurd since that
  would be a fairly major compatibility break. OTOH, adding support for the
  Linux/FreeBSD names in addition to the hyphenated names would be good
  from the point of view of better interoperability generally, not just for
<rleigh> For now, getting sysvinit to support the Hurd names is easy
  enough, and if you do add the Linux/FreeBSD names then the compatibility
  stuff can be removed when that's available.

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-11

<gnu_srs> Hi, still problems with hurd console under openrc: console:
  Console library initialization failed: Not a directory
<gnu_srs> and /dev/vcs is there
<youpi> gnu_srs: but is it a directory?
<gnu_srs> the output of console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd
  --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs gives the response above
<gnu_srs> looks like /dev/vcs is a file. How to recreate the directory
<gnu_srs> I thought it should not be removed with the latest sysvinit
  package (-49)
<gnu_srs> from -48 changelog:  Tell init.d/umountfs to not umount /dev/vcs,
  as it break the console on Hurd.  Patch from Samuel Thibault.
<youpi> gnu_srs: but did your reconfigure the hurd package to remount it ?
<gnu_srs> ?
<youpi>  /dev/vcs  won't magically be remounted by just not being unmounted
  by sysvinit
<gnu_srs> dpkg-reconfigure hurd?
<youpi> sure
<gnu_srs> I can start the console manually, but ENABLE='true' in
  /etc/default/hurd-console does not work (at least with openrc)
<youpi> does /dev/vcs becomes a mere file again with openrc?
<gnu_srs> no it's a directory with 6 entries
<youpi> does the /etc/init.d/hurd-console gets to starT?
<youpi> I'm afraid I'm really asking obvious questions that you should have
  already asked for yourself
<gg0> so you mounted it and it's not a file anymore. does it work now?
<gnu_srs> it seem like the service is not started, trying to figure out
<gnu_srs> I can restart it but it is not visible in rc-status?

<gg0> shutdown stuck at "Asking all remaining processes to
  terminate...done." (even before distupgrade btw)
<gg0> seems stuck at killall5 -18
<teythoon> hm, that's bad
<teythoon> how do you know that ?
<gg0>  /etc/init.d/sendsigs and /etc/init.d/killprocs
<gg0> (yes, switched to sysvinit and testing openrc)
<teythoon> but killall5 -18 is SIGSTOP right?
<teythoon> and if it says ...done. then killall5 has already been run
<teythoon> so, how do you know it hangs at killall5 ?
<gg0> teythoon: "done" is "log_action_end_msg 0" just after killall5 -15,
  then we should get "Killing all remaining processes" or "All processes
  ended within $seq seconds."
<gg0> Asking all remaining processes to terminate...killall5 -15 -o 956 #
<gg0> All processes ended within 1 seconds...done.
<gg0> shutdown properly this time
<teythoon> hm
<teythoon> fwiw, i've also encountered hangs, haven't investigated yet
<gg0> with openrc?
<teythoon> yes

<gnu_srs> Is it so that with teythoons mtab translator umount -a unmounts
  all passive translators, removing the translator records??
<gnu_srs> causing pflocal (and pfinet) to disappear?


<azeem> gnu_srs: didn't he say that this is getting fixed in his latest
<gnu_srs> yes, what about mine and gg0s currently hosed systems?
<gnu_srs> yes, but until the patch makes into the next release,**
<youpi> gnu_srs: pflocal and pfinet don't appear in mtab
<youpi> because they don't expose whole directories, just a trivial node
<youpi> so no, they won't get umounted by umount -a
<youpi> simply check the content of /proc/mounts
<gnu_srs> so how come I cannot recover my image?
<gnu_srs> and gg0 neither
<youpi> no idea, I've never tried openrc
<youpi> when daring new fields, you face new issues, that's no wonder
<gnu_srs> so this does not happen with sysv-rc?
<youpi> I haven't seen any of this kind of issue
<youpi> whether it's related to using openrc vs sysvrc, I have no idea
<youpi> but at least that's a candidate for sure
<gnu_srs> well in my case hurd bootstrap is stuck after ext2fs exec and
  before init
<gnu_srs> ant reinstalling hurd via linux does not help
<youpi> you mean the hurd package?
<youpi> you can also try to reinstall the libc0.3 package
<youpi> normally it should be all that is needed for boot
<youpi> perhaps also some /dev entries
<gnu_srs> yes, the hurd package. I will try with libc0.3 tomorrow. Which
  /dev entries, and how to create them manually?
<youpi> "perhaps" implies that I don't know
<youpi> you can as well just boot with an install CD, mount your disk,
  chroot into it, and run dpkg-reconfigure hurd there to recreate
  everything in /dv
<youpi> +e

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-13

<youpi> pere, rleigh: which script is supposed to make /etc/mtab a symlink
  to /proc/mounts already? I can't find it
<pere> youpi: see /lib/init/mount-functions.sh

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-13

<braunr> teythoon: are the sysvinit debian packages in sid usable currently
<teythoon> they are
<braunr> nice
<teythoon> youpi and pere have been busy polishing it quite a bit
<braunr> teythoon: and uhm, how does one enable sysvinit in debian ? :)
<braunr> ah, found pere's blog
<teythoon> braunr: didn't you read the postinst instructions ? :p
<teythoon> update-alternatives --config runsystem
<braunr> oh right
<braunr> got lost in the noise
<braunr> very nice
<braunr> still a few glitches i see, but it does the job
<braunr> although i'm not sure i like the lack of console prompt :/
<braunr> i'll keep darnassus on the old runsystem until this is fixed
<teythoon> braunr: cp -p /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab
<teythoon> and  kill -HUP 1
<braunr> oh
<braunr> :)
<braunr> teythoon: thanks
<braunr> teythoon: do you know why there are three tmpfs instances after
  startup (/run, and in addition, /run/shm and /run/lock) instead of one on
  /run ?
<braunr> sorry for being so annoying :)
<teythoon> braunr: dunno, but that is what Debian does
<braunr> https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory explains it a
<teythoon> root@thinkbox ~src # uname -s; mount | grep /run
<teythoon> Linux
<teythoon> tmpfs on /run type tmpfs
<teythoon> tmpfs on /run/lock type tmpfs
<teythoon> tmpfs on /run/shm type tmpfs
<braunr> i like this /run directory
<teythoon> yep, it's nice
<braunr> ah great, i can add ,sync=30 to fstab and it's added at boot time

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-17

<congzhang> hi, I think we should make console server separate from
<congzhang> if DM want start, console server need be start first
<braunr> congzhang: send patches
<congzhang> and hurd-console mark it start at the end of sysinit?
<teythoon> congzhang: i agree
<braunr> teythoon: isn't hurd-console the console server ?
<congzhang> I want to check whether it is need first
<teythoon> braunr: yes, but congzhangs point is (as i understand it) that
  the backend component should be started earlier
<teythoon> then again, i know little about the hurd console
<congzhang> no, if user enable one dispaly manager, then cycle dependence
<braunr> why ?
<teythoon> i believe that is a different problem, namely that our
  hurd-console init script depends on $all
<teythoon> pere: ^
<congzhang> hurd-console Required-Start: $all
<braunr> ok
<braunr> yes that's a separate issue, and easier to understand
<congzhang> teythoon: if wdm Required-Start hurd-console, then insserv
  can't generate the script order, right ?
<teythoon> congzhang: possibly, i don't know for sure
<congzhang> It doesn't work , and I rename to S??wdm to later one like
<congzhang> but insserv will regenerate the script order in /etc/rc2.d/, I
  can't depend on that
<pere> congzhang: $all means after all scripts not depending on $all, and
  not what the intuitive interpretation would tell you.
<pere> the current implementation order all scripts as if $all were not
  present, and then move all scripts depending on $all to the last order
<pere> because $all is misunderstood by most users, I strongly recommend to
  _not_ use $all in any init.d script.
<congzhang> pere: so to make wdm to be number+more?
<pere> congzhang: make it depend on $all and be lexically sorted after
  hurd-console. :)
<congzhang> wdm need start after hurd-console, if console-driver will run
  when hurd-console start
<pere> not quite sure how startpar handle that case, so it might not work
  the way you want anyway.
<pere> adding a dependency on hurd-console should not hurt, though. :)
<congzhang> how make it lexically sorted after hurd-console?
<pere> w is already after h in the alphabet. :)
<congzhang> that's trick!
<pere> but startpar uses the info in /etc/init.d/.depend.* (makefile style)
  to order scripts, so check what the result is there too.
<braunr> congzhang: no it's not
<congzhang> that's just cache
<braunr> congzhang: ?
<congzhang> and generated from script head?
<congzhang> the right way is Adding run-time dependencies  in script
<pere> congzhang: yes.  insserv called from update-rc.d generate the
  .depend.* files, and startpar reads the files (and ignore the headers)
  when starting scripts.
<congzhang> if the script have cycle dependence, no one can help
<pere> congzhang: if there is a cycle, update-rc.d will reject the script.
<congzhang> sure, because the system current have not runable one
<congzhang> Display  Manager run before hurd-console, and never successful
  for X stared failed!
<pere> what is this hurd-console stuff, btw?  it sound like somthing that
  should be started in rcboot.d (aka rcS.d on Debian).
<congzhang> if you install wdm, you will notice that wdm start failed
<pere> should it run before sulogin when booting into single user?
<congzhang> hurd-console mix too much thins
<teythoon> pere: it's the console multiplexes that provides /dev/tty?
<congzhang> just part of that function
<teythoon> pere: it's like screen or tmux a server-client architecture
<teythoon> the x server gets keyboard and mouse events from it iirc
<pere> right.  so not needed by sulogin, I guess.  because if it was, it
  should start in rcS.d, not rc[2-5].d/.
<congzhang> and also start /bin/console to start keyboard and mouse driver 
<teythoon>  /bin/console is the frontend
<pere> and if it started in rcS.d/, it would always be started before
  wdm. :)
<braunr> i think it should be started in rcS.d
<congzhang> why not essential?
<pere> braunr: when I tried, it failed.
<congzhang> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/console.html
<congzhang> teythoon: i want to make one disk img with default DM, and face
  these problem
<braunr> pere: do you have a log of the failur e?
<congzhang> teythoon: I know you are working on the hurd init system, so I
  ask you for help
<pere> braunr: only the boot message: Starting Hurd console multiplexer:
  hurd-console failed!
<pere> braunr: how can I learn more?
<braunr> i don't know any easy way
<braunr> try to put the system in its early state manually
<braunr> and maybe run rpctrace on the actual console command
<braunr> if that is what really fails
<congzhang> and I found that pc_kbd may have some bug? I have high
  frequence of start failed if I make it start
<congzhang> but I can't located the real source of these problem
<teythoon> pere: the console logs some messages to syslog
<pere> teythoon: looked, nothing there. :(
<pere> gah, look like I broke my hurd machine.  Added rpctrace to the start
  of hurd-console, and now the boot just hang there, and when I interrupt
  it the kernel reboot the entire machine. :(
<braunr> pere: use rpctrace manually, don't script it
<teythoon> oh yeah, seen this as well
<pere> braunr: well, no use to test it after boot when it hang during
<teythoon> it triggers an assertion in the proc server iirc
<braunr> pere: that doesn't imply you need to script it
<congzhang> pere: qemu snapshot mode will be your friend:)
<braunr> ideally, i'd run the init system automatically up to the point i
  want to run my test, and make it spawn a shell, and use that shell then
<pere> congzhang: hah.  real men do to take backups.  but they weep a
  lot. :)
<congzhang> teythoon: runsystem.sysv has work well on my machine, just some
  error infomation
<teythoon> good

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-21

<gnu_srs1> Hi, a general question: is ptrace available for GNU/Hurd?
<teythoon> yes
<gnu_srs1> tks, the openrc developers are working on process supervision
  using it: good/bad? (compared to cgroups)
<teythoon> uh
<teythoon> i prefer the cgroups approach
<teythoon> but upstart also uses ptrace to keep track of the 'main' process
  of an daemon
<teythoon> they use ptrace to follow a daemon that double forks
<gnu_srs1> teythoon: and regarding portability?

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-24

<braunr> sysvinit doesn't seem to handle /etc/default/locale into

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-25

<gg0> how about switching runsystem.sysv by default?
<youpi> now that it seems to be running fine, we could do that, yes

Required Interfaces

In the thread starting here, a message has been posted that contains the following list (no claim for completeness) of interfaces that are used in (two source code files of) systemd:

  • cgroups
  • namespaces
  • selinux
  • autofs4
  • capabilities
  • udev
  • oom score adjust
  • ionice
  • /proc/$PID/stat
  • fanotify
  • inotify
  • audit
  • CLONE_xxx
  • /proc/$PID/comm
  • /proc/$PID/cmdline
  • /proc/cmdline
  • numerous GNU APIs like asprintf
  • /proc/$PID/fd
  • /dev/tty0
  • /dev/random
  • /dev/char/
  • openat() and friends
  • /proc/$PID/root
  • waitid()
  • /dev/disk/by-label/
  • /dev/disk/by-uuid/
  • /sys/class/tty/console/active
  • /sys/class/dmi/id
  • /proc/$PID/cgroup
  • \033[3J
  • /dev/rtc
  • settimeofday() and its semantics