Mailing List Archive

* Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 19:53 Uhr:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 19:30 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > * Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:40 Uhr:
> > > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > /bin/systemctl
> > > > > libdbus-1.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
> > > >
> > > > Here is a prime example of why "vertical integration" should really be
> > > > called "a horrible mess of tight coupling"...
> > >
> > > You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for
> > > system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or bash.
> > > Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be able to boot
> > > without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus.
> >
> > If this was true, we will soon have problems with linux systems that
> > windows had in 1995.
> >
> > IMO a system should *always* be bootable without that "high level"
> > stuff. And by bootable I mean that you can get a root prompt at
> > least.
>
> d-bus is not high-level stuff... For example, you can't use bluetooth
> without d-bus. Even Android has it..

And you need bluetooth to boot your stable datacenter server
systems?

> That said, in the new systemd world, bash is.. Since it's only a "UI"
> tools (just like gnome-shell for example). Since you don't need it to
> boot.

Yeah right. Having dbus for bluetooth is much more important than
having a shell.

Please remember that there are *way* more server systems running linux
without any graphical desktop at all than desktop systems.

-Marc
--
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 21:45 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>
> > That said, in the new systemd world, bash is.. Since it's only a
> "UI"
> > tools (just like gnome-shell for example). Since you don't need it
> to
> > boot.
>
> Yeah right. Having dbus for bluetooth is much more important than
> having a shell.
>
> Please remember that there are *way* more server systems running
> linux
> without any graphical desktop at all than desktop systems.

Please remember that servers and desktops are dwarfed by the number of
embedded systems running Linux. Probably more devices are sold running
Linux in a single day than the total number of servers in the world...

But well, this isn't a number's game. D-Bus is the system bus and
bluetooth is just one example of a system level component that uses it.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>>> What mistakes?
>>
>>> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
>>> thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
>>> packages just to make it work.
>>
>> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
>> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
>> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
>
> The problem is that to boot a modern system, you need a shitload of
> stuff. For example, modern network filesystems often have secure
> authentication and probably LDAP too, so that means we need to move ldap
> and openssl into / and all the dependencies. Also, anything that
> installs a udev rule needs to be in /, and the list goes on an on. Very
> soon, you have almost everything in /...
>
> This rule made sense in the 80s, but it doesn't match the modern world
> anymore.
>
> Some longer explanations:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long
before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery
partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use an initramfs for their
"recover partition" probably just doesn't realize how well suited an
initramfs is for the job. It's so well suited for the job that it makes
the old FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" seem quaint.
--
Thanks,
Zac

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > > That's why you have dracut to do it for you.

> > Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?

It's keyworded for only two arches.

> This is a discussion about the future... Changing keywords is trivial
> if we care.

Oh, let's quickly drop the notion of arch testing/stabilisation. :)


jer

* Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 22:55 Uhr:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 21:45 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> >
> > > That said, in the new systemd world, bash is.. Since it's only a
> > "UI"
> > > tools (just like gnome-shell for example). Since you don't need it
> > to
> > > boot.
> >
> > Yeah right. Having dbus for bluetooth is much more important than
> > having a shell.
> >
> > Please remember that there are *way* more server systems running
> > linux
> > without any graphical desktop at all than desktop systems.
>
> Please remember that servers and desktops are dwarfed by the number of
> embedded systems running Linux. Probably more devices are sold running
> Linux in a single day than the total number of servers in the world...

Yes, but these do most propably never run some stock distro.

> But well, this isn't a number's game. D-Bus is the system bus and
> bluetooth is just one example of a system level component that uses it.

... which is not really required to boot a system.

-Marc
--
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
> Olivier Crête<tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>>>> That's why you have dracut to do it for you.
>>> Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?
> It's keyworded for only two arches.
>
>

And amd64 is one of them. I'd say it is a fairly popular arch too. ;-)

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output? Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Marc Schiffbauer posted on Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:45:35 +0100 as excerpted:

> Please remember that there are *way* more server systems running linux
> without any graphical desktop at all than desktop systems.

So with Google activating ~800k android Linux systems a day last I heard,
how do the number of (android) Linux systems (which we've already
established as having dbus) compare to the number of server Linux systems?

If traditional gnu-linux isn't a minority in its own community already,
it soon will be.

I sympathize with the sentiment behind the argument, but the numbers game
really doesn't cut it, or we'd all be running some binary distribution or
other instead of from-source Gentoo and we'd not be having this
discussion as it would have already been had for us. (Yeah, there IS
rather a lot to be read between THOSE lines!)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:30:07 +0100
Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff@gentoo.org> wrote:

> * Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:40 Uhr:
> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > /bin/systemctl
> > > > libdbus-1.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
> > >
> > > Here is a prime example of why "vertical integration" should
> > > really be called "a horrible mess of tight coupling"...
> >
> > You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for
> > system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or
> > bash. Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be
> > able to boot without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus.
>
> IMO a system should *always* be bootable without that "high level"
> stuff. And by bootable I mean that you can get a root prompt at
> least.

And why do you consider D-Bus being high-level? Just because things
used to reinvent the wheel before in a much worse fashion?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

* Michał Górny schrieb am 05.01.12 um 09:26 Uhr:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:30:07 +0100
> Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > * Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:40 Uhr:
> > > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > /bin/systemctl
> > > > > libdbus-1.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
> > > >
> > > > Here is a prime example of why "vertical integration" should
> > > > really be called "a horrible mess of tight coupling"...
> > >
> > > You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for
> > > system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or
> > > bash. Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be
> > > able to boot without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus.
> >
> > IMO a system should *always* be bootable without that "high level"
> > stuff. And by bootable I mean that you can get a root prompt at
> > least.
>
> And why do you consider D-Bus being high-level? Just because things
> used to reinvent the wheel before in a much worse fashion?

I meant "hight-level" only in a way that it is not really needed to
boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root
prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find
and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell.

-Marc
--
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>
> I meant "hight-level" only in a way that it is not really needed to
> boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root
> prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find
> and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell.

Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I
think we're all speaking of a minimually useful system here.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>
> I meant "hight-level" only in a way that it is not really needed to
> boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root
> prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find
> and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell.

Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I
think we're all speaking of a minimally useful system here.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

Olivier Crête posted on Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:31:07 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>>
>> I meant "hight-level" only in a way that it is not really needed to
>> boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root prompt
>> at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find and mount
>> the rootfs, fire a getty and shell.
>
> Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I
> think we're all speaking of a minimally useful system here.

But init=/bin/sh (or /bin/bash as I use here) DOES help in a surprising
number of cases as long as the necessary storage and input drivers and
filesystem modules are builtin. And a lot of us have strong ideas about
wanting to keep it that way, being able to use init=/bin/sh on the kernel
command line itself, from grub or whatever.

Some of us even tried lvm and dumped it for precisely that reason: it
requires userspace and thus an initr* if root is on lvm, and without an
lvm managing root, its usefulness is diminished to the point where it's
more trouble than it's worth, especially since md/raid has handled
partitioned RAID very well for quite some time now (a big use case for lvm
originally, since md/raid didn't handle partitioned mds directly, back in
the day), AND unlike lvm, it can be configured on the kernel command line
directly, allowing one to actually get to that init=/bin/sh if necessary.

That's low level. Tell me when init=/usr/bin/dbus-whatever works from
the kernel command line. Until then, system-bus or no-system-bus, it's
not even in the same ball park, or even on the same planet, come to think
of it, level-wise.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:12:26 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> But init=/bin/sh (or /bin/bash as I use here) DOES help in a
> surprising number of cases as long as the necessary storage and input
> drivers and filesystem modules are builtin. And a lot of us have
> strong ideas about wanting to keep it that way, being able to use
> init=/bin/sh on the kernel command line itself, from grub or whatever.

[...]

> That's low level.

Looking at your definition of 'low level', it seems that OpenRC is high
level as well.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 07:27:49AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> >
> >>
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> > must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
> >
>
> Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in
> initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to
> mount other things on? Just to store /etc ?
>
> Or will /etc move to /usr too?

No, /etc isn't going anywhere.

William

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
>
> No, /etc isn't going anywhere.

Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config
files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).

While I can't speak to your comments about being unable to restart
daemons with systemd (hope this isn't the case, obviously), dracut
does in fact include a copy of some files in /etc like mdadm.conf.
So, if you reconfigure your raid it might be beneficial to rebuild
your initramfs.

As you might expect that is optional - mdadm can more-or-less work
without mdadm.conf, but in some cases you could have your raids change
name and such. If you mount root by UUID that won't prevent you from
booting, but it might mess up your own scripts if you refer to md
devices by number.

Rich

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config
> files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway.

They've thought of that, and will make
- kexec mandatory so that reboots are not needed for those times you
need to switch kernels
- make hibernation mandatory for the other times

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config
> files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway.

Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand
what they do before criticizing.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > >
> > > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
> >
> > Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> > put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> > Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your
> > config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons
> > anyway.
>
> Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand
> what they do before criticizing.

I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality,
correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour,
understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new
shiny things.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 21:09 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
> Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > > William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > > >
> > > > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
> > >
> > > Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> > > put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> > > Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your
> > > config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand
> > what they do before criticizing.
>
> I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality,
> correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour,
> understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new
> shiny things.

The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
(seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well
defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more
stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the
boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends
who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for
sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's probably
easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to breaking than
mucking around shell scripts).

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:09:35 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
> Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > > William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > > >
> > > > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
> > >
> > > Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you
> > > to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without
> > > it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to
> > > your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart
> > > daemons anyway.
> >
> > Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand
> > what they do before criticizing.
>
> I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing
> functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined
> behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement
> questionable new shiny things.

Are you talking about the /usr move, systemd or udev now? Or just
throwing random nouns to prove some random point?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:06:18 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing
> > functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined
> > behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement
> > questionable new shiny things.
>
> Are you talking about the /usr move, systemd or udev now? Or just
> throwing random nouns to prove some random point?

I'm talking about the GnomeOS concept, which involves all of those.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config
> files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway.

Although this is a bit frightening to think about, because people are
crazy enough to actually implement it, this is one of the funniest
things I've read lately, thanks for the laugh xD

On a serious note though, it seems to me that the /bin | /usr/bin line
is too blurry, creating confusion. Migrating everything to a single
folder is the simplest solution of all. Combine that with redhat's
update approach and it is easy to see why they've taken this route.

If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root,
we need to:

- establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for /
- fix/patch software in that list so it can run without /usr there
- create /bin => /usr/bin/ symlinks for above software (simplifies
things if packages start hardcoding /usr/bin here and there)
- move everything else in /usr/bin/

Do this and I'm sure other people/distros will follow/help and
upstreams will accept our patches. I'm sure there are other people who
don't like this "one bin folder to rule them all" logic.

If no one is really interested in doing all this... well, whoever
actually implements something in open source usually wins the race -
it's the same in Gentoo too, no? ;)

Only difference here is, one team has the advantage of being paid
to do it.
--
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com

On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
[snip]
> The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
> more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
> (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well
> defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more
> stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the
> boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends
> who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for
> sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's
> probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to
> breaking than mucking around shell scripts).
As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if
people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and
instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run.
(Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons)

Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat "$urandom_seed" >
/dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively
modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice.

I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad
code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to
educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read
most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem?
Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more
agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey.

On 6 January 2012 06:14, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> [snip]
>> The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
>> more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
>> (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well
>> defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more
>> stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the
>> boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends
>> who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for
>> sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's
>> probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to
>> breaking than mucking around shell scripts).
> As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if
> people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and
> instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run.
> (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons)
>
> Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat "$urandom_seed" >
> /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively
> modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice.

Seems straightforward and well-documented to me:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/tree/src/random-seed.c. And the
"if I naively modify things, they might explode" argument holds for
anything.

These are basic things that you almost certainly would not be
modifying as a sysadmin anyway. I'd hope that the things that you
really do want to muck around with are provided as configuration, and
if they're not, you talk to upstream and make a case for this being
useful to users. Just like with every other open source project.

--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)