Testing is actually mandatory, what’s not mandatory though is to do it before deploying.
Testing is actually mandatory, what’s not mandatory though is to do it before deploying.
what’s feurking
An optional step in the développement process
Emacs? When there’s ed
? Talk about bloat…
Could be the kernel itself
Wouldn’t make sense to me because the thread says GNU/Linux and others, though this could relate to Android or distros not using any GNU.
gnupg
Usually not exposed to the network though, but it’s generally a mess so wouldn’t be too surprising
Another candidate I have in mind is ntpd, but again that is usually not easily accessible from outside and not used everywhere, as stuff like systemd-timesyncd exists.
Just want to stress that I’m not sure about it being OpenSSH, it was more supposed to be a fun guess than a certain prediction
Since this affects Linux and others, I’m guessing this is about OpenSSH. But I’m not very certain. Just can’t think of another candidate.
But holy sh, if your software has been running on everything for the last 20 years
This doesn’t sound like glibc as someone in the thread guessed.
I, a systems guy, have a better time learning go than nix packages.
Go is a simple and elegant imperative language (that does come with its downsides); Nix the DSL is a functional language which requires a different way of thinking. Systems usually are operated imperatively, so it’s normal that you’d find it easier.
It’s not an easy language at all and one might ask if another one wouldn’t do the job better, which is what Guix System kind of explores, but its (nix) design goals make a lot of sense.
NTSYNC is one example, I don’t know what the current progress is https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240124004028.16826-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com/
It was supposed to be in 6.10, I don’t know if that actually happened
For most network share I use /mnt/$server.
I use /mnt/$proto/$server
, though that level of organization was probably overkill. Whatever…
I do /volumX for additional hard drives.
A good first approximation.
So where in this setup would you mount a network share? Or am additional hard drive for storage? The latter is neither removable nor temporary. Also /run
is quite more than what this makes it seem (e.g. user mounts can be located there), there is practically only one system path for executables (/usr/bin
)…
Not saying that the graphic is inherently wrong or bad, but one shouldn’t think it’s the end all be all.
The title says “bcachefs-tools”, the linked kernel thread that the comment referred to was about the bcachefs kernel part and did not touch the bcachefs userspace tools. Debian says they can’t package with these pinned dependencies and explains why. Kent says relaxing dependencies breaks the programs.
The only hint at the other topic I see is this:
(not even considering some hostile emails that I recently received from the upstream developer or his public rants on lkml and reddit)
I guess this is about https://www.reddit.com/r/bcachefs/comments/1em2vzf/psa_avoid_debian/, and while I think the title is too broad, the actual message is
If you’re running bcachefs, you’ll want to be on a more modern distro - or building bcachefs-tools yourself.
I don’t consider Kent’s reasoning (also further down the thread) a rant - it might not be the most diplomatic, but he’s not the only one who has problems with Debian’s processes. The xscreensaver developer is another one for similar reasons.
I think, in fairness, bcachefs and Debian currently aren’t a good fit. bcachefs is also in the kernel so users can rest it and report, but it wasn’t meant to be stable; it’s meant to not lose data unrecoverably.
Anyhow, while I think that he’s also not the easiest person on the LKML, I don’t consider him ranting there; and with the author’s and my judgement differing in these points, I’m led to believe that we might also disagree on what qualifies as hostile.
Lastly, while I’m not a big fan of how Rust packaging works, it ensures that the program is built exactly the same on the developer’s and other machines (for users and distributors); it is somewhat ironic to see Debian complain about it, since they do understand the importance of reproducibility.
You must have missed the last half of the post then. Especially the last two paragraphs.
There’s isn’t much more to that issue than that sentence, while all other paragraphs cover the packaging. It’s tangential at best.
The OP is about packaging issues with userspace utilities due to version pinning in Rust. It’s an issue with Rust in general. Kent is not obligated to lock dependencies in any particular fashion. He could loosen the dependencies, but there is no obligation, and Debian has no obligation to package it.
This is different from the thread you linked in which the bcachefs kernel code and the submission process is discussed, and on which there was a thread here as well in the last days. But your criticism, as valid as it is, only applies there, not in a thread about tooling packaging issue.
Which is a completely different issue than what the post is about, hence my question
Submitting something that is generally problematic and yelling about how it will EVENTUALLY be good is a good way to get your shit tossed out.
What are you hinting at regarding this specific news?
Maybe not, but doesn’t really answer my question what this would be used for.
I’m not hating, just interested; my last knowledge was that if you wanted to play Direct3D 12 games, you’d need the proton fork. But I don’t know many other things Direct3D is used for, so…
Yeah but to my knowledge only limited, when I tried it back then, D2R wouldn’t run with it, you’d need vkd3d-proton.
Is this at this point useful as anything else than being a base for vkd3d-proton?
Don’t know how much this would help you; I did this on NixOS, however the steps for creating the key pair and enrolling is the same on all distributions, while your UEFI steps can vary depending on the manufacturer.
https://github.com/nix-community/lanzaboote/blob/master/docs/QUICK_START.md
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface/Secure_Boot for Arch
My router will still block all ports not explicitly allowed for the hosts regardless of protocol, it’s a firewall after all and not just NAT. Just because the host addressable doesn’t mean its ports are reachable.