Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #274975 > unrolled thread

where is mail.log

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  where is mail.log Bitfox <hi@bitfox.ddns.net> - 2024-11-29 01:10 +0100
    Re: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-11-29 01:20 +0100
      Re: where is mail.log "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <roy@rtellason.com> - 2024-11-29 21:20 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-11-29 21:30 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-11-29 22:30 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-11-30 14:40 +0100
            Re: where is mail.log "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <roy@rtellason.com> - 2024-11-30 23:30 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 04:10 +0100
            Re: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-12-03 04:20 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> - 2024-12-03 10:30 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-11-29 21:50 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log pocket@homemail.com - 2024-11-29 22:40 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-11-30 07:40 +0100
            Re: where is mail.log Bitfox <bitfox@secubox.org> - 2024-11-30 13:40 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log Scott Andrews <pocket@homemail.com> - 2024-11-30 14:00 +0100
                Re: where is mail.log Richard Owlett <rowlett@access.net> - 2024-11-30 15:10 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-11-30 14:30 +0100
              Re: differences between sysvinit and systemd; was: where is mail.log Michael Kjörling <c9bc136c6063@ewoof.net> - 2024-11-30 14:30 +0100
                Re: differences between sysvinit and systemd; was: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-11-30 15:10 +0100
                  Re: differences between sysvinit and systemd Michael Kjörling <c9bc136c6063@ewoof.net> - 2024-11-30 16:50 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-11-30 14:50 +0100
            Re: where is mail.log pocket@homemail.com - 2024-11-30 13:40 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-11-30 18:00 +0100
                Re: where is mail.log Scott Andrews <pocket@homemail.com> - 2024-11-30 18:40 +0100
                  Re: where is mail.log <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-11-30 19:00 +0100
                    Re: where is mail.log pocket@homemail.com - 2024-11-30 19:20 +0100
                      Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-11-30 19:30 +0100
                      Re: where is mail.log <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-11-30 19:30 +0100
                      Re: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-11-30 19:40 +0100
                        Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-11-30 20:00 +0100
                          Re: where is mail.log <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-11-30 20:20 +0100
                            Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem George at Clug <Clug@goproject.info> - 2024-12-01 01:10 +0100
                              Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-12-01 01:20 +0100
                                Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem George at Clug <Clug@goproject.info> - 2024-12-01 01:30 +0100
                                Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-12-01 07:20 +0100
                          Re: where is mail.log Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 17:30 +0100
                        Re: where is mail.log Scott Andrews <pocket@homemail.com> - 2024-11-30 20:00 +0100
                  Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-11-30 19:10 +0100
              Re: where is mail.log Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@debian-user.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-12-02 13:10 +0100
    Re: where is mail.log Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-11-29 01:40 +0100
      Re: where is mail.log Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-11-29 03:10 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log Bitfox <hi@bitfox.ddns.net> - 2024-11-29 05:10 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log Bitfox <hi@bitfox.ddns.net> - 2024-11-29 11:40 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log George at Clug <Clug@goproject.info> - 2024-11-30 13:30 +0100
    Re: where is mail.log George at Clug <Clug@goproject.info> - 2024-11-29 03:50 +0100
    Re: where is mail.log Michael <ml@hemathor.de> - 2024-12-02 12:50 +0100
      Re: where is mail.log Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-12-02 13:10 +0100
        Re: where is mail.log Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-12-02 16:10 +0100
          Re: where is mail.log Michael <ml@hemathor.de> - 2024-12-03 11:20 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#275016

Bitfox (12024-11-30):
> May I ask what's the main difference between systemd and sysv for init
> system?

SysV Init is a bunch of fragile shell scripts with 80% boilerplate code
that will misbehave at the first unexpected circumstance and cannot even
tell you if your daemon has crashed or is running in five instances
stepping on each other toes.

Systemd is an over-engineered monstrosity that invalidates all the
intuition you have built based on Unix tradition, where the
documentation tells you it has six different ways of doing the bizarre
thing you need between which you cannot guess the difference but you
realize none work as documented and suit your needs, and you end up
abusing another feature in a way that will break on next release.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275009

> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 1:37 AM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: where is mail.log
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:36:50PM +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Because systemd is the init system on most all distributions.
>
> It's the default, though, which is fine. That said, you can still
> use SysV instead. Some assembly needed.
>
> > Get used to it.
>
> Or apply some assembly.
>
> > Debian will need to massively need to change their ways, as the init scripts are not supported by systemd anymore.
>
> But still by SysV...
>

You did not comprehend what I posted.  I am on the systemd mail list.
They have dropped all sysV support.
The only way you'll have init script support is if you rip out systemd.
Since debian is using systemd for their init system debian will have to come into the here and now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275026

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 01:31:12PM +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
> You did not comprehend what I posted.

I think it is you who are having problems reading.

> I am on the systemd mail list.
> They have dropped all sysV support.
> The only way you'll have init script support is if you rip out systemd.

Yes, that is what is being said: it is still possible to run Debian
without systemd. People are doing it. There are package maintainers that
wish to let people do it. Surprise! It's a funny old world.

> Since debian is using systemd for their init system debian will have
> to come into the here and now.

Have you been living under a rock for ten years? The only reason why
systemd is able to drop their svsv init script support is *because*
Debian has been ready to also do so for a long time! Nothing operates in
a vacuum. There are multiple Debian developers who are also systemd
developers. They have been working on the goal to make everything in
Debian have a native systemd service unit for a *long* time and we've
been at that stage for some time already. There is no "coming into the
here and now". We are here already because of work done in part by
Debian.

However it is also separately true that many packages still have a sysv
init script that their maintainers support for the purposes of having it
work without systemd. Though I have no interest in doing that personally.

What you seem to not understand is that it has been Debian policy for
*years* for packages to have systemd unit files, but it has not been
policy for packages to get rid of any existing or contributed sysv init
scripts. That is optional.

There's plenty of users who do need to "get into the here and now" (as
evidenced by this thread), but Debian itself has been there for a full
release cycle at least.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275027

> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 11:54 AM
> From: "Andy Smith" <andy@strugglers.net>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: where is mail.log
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 01:31:12PM +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
> > You did not comprehend what I posted.
>
> I think it is you who are having problems reading.
>

Again You can not comprehend


> > I am on the systemd mail list.
> > They have dropped all sysV support.
> > The only way you'll have init script support is if you rip out systemd.
>
> Yes, that is what is being said: it is still possible to run Debian
> without systemd. People are doing it. There are package maintainers that
> wish to let people do it. Surprise! It's a funny old world.

Well I didn't say you couldn't

>
> > Since debian is using systemd for their init system debian will have
> > to come into the here and now.

And debian is light years away from properly using systemd.

>
> Have you been living under a rock for ten years? The only reason why
> systemd is able to drop their svsv init script support is *because*
> Debian has been ready to also do so for a long time! Nothing operates in
> a vacuum. There are multiple Debian developers who are also systemd
> developers. They have been working on the goal to make everything in
> Debian have a native systemd service unit for a *long* time and we've
> been at that stage for some time already. There is no "coming into the
> here and now". We are here already because of work done in part by
> Debian.
>
> However it is also separately true that many packages still have a sysv
> init script that their maintainers support for the purposes of having it
> work without systemd. Though I have no interest in doing that personally.

OS

>
> What you seem to not understand is that it has been Debian policy for
> *years* for packages to have systemd unit files, but it has not been
> policy for packages to get rid of any existing or contributed sysv init
> scripts. That is optional.

Yet you miss the point

>
> There's plenty of users who do need to "get into the here and now" (as
> evidenced by this thread), but Debian itself has been there for a full
> release cycle at least.

LOL No, just No

[alarm@alarm ~]$ pacman -Q|grep systemd
systemd 256.8-2
systemd-libs 256.8-2

[alarm@alarm ~]$ cat /etc/hosts
# Static table lookup for hostnames.
# See hosts(5) for details.

dpkg -l|grep systemd
libnss-resolve 252.31-1~deb12u1
libpam-systemd 252.31-1~deb12u1
libsystemd-shared 252.31-1~deb12u1
libsystemd0 252.31-1~deb12u1
systemd  252.31-1~deb12u1
systemd-container 252.31-1~deb12u1
systemd-resolved 252.31-1~deb12u1
systemd-sysv  252.31-1~deb12u1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gone not longer supported
debian will need to see the lite or change to sysV init

systemd-timesyncd 252.31-1~deb12u1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275029

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 06:31:56PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:

[...]

> LOL No, just No

Strong emotions, but... why?

[...]

> systemd-sysv  252.31-1~deb12u1
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Gone not longer supported

Why all of Debian? As a SysV init user, I, of course, don't
have (nor had, ever) that package. That one is for systemd
users wishing some SysV backward compatibility.

I have the impression you don't even know what systemd-sysv
is for.

And oh, BTW. I see that package on Trixie (Testing) and
Sid (Unstable) -- so I have no clue what your "Gone not
longer supported" means.

> debian will need to see the lite or change to sysV init

Why "Debian"? You use it this way, I use it that way. It's
like an MTA: Debian's default is, AFAIK, Exim, but you can
have Postfix, you can have Sendmail or whatever.

Be happy and let others be happy.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275031

> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: "Scott Andrews" <pocket@homemail.com>
> Cc: "Andy Smith" <andy@strugglers.net>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: where is mail.log
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 06:31:56PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
>

[...]

>
> > systemd-sysv  252.31-1~deb12u1
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Gone not longer supported
>
> Why all of Debian? As a SysV init user, I, of course, don't
> have (nor had, ever) that package. That one is for systemd
> users wishing some SysV backward compatibility.

And that "SysV backward compatibility" has been eliminated from systemd


>
> I have the impression you don't even know what systemd-sysv
> is for.

Yes I do know what systemd-sysv is for (I run my own custom distribution).

    * Support for System V service scripts is deprecated and will be
      removed in v258. Please make sure to update your software
      *now* to include a native systemd unit file instead of a legacy
      System V script to retain compatibility with future systemd releases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275032

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:16:16PM +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
> > From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> > Why all of Debian? As a SysV init user, I, of course, don't
> > have (nor had, ever) that package. That one is for systemd
> > users wishing some SysV backward compatibility.
> 
> And that "SysV backward compatibility" has been eliminated from systemd

Okay, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here and I'm afraid it's
yours. I am going to try one last time.

The "SysV backward compatibility" you're talking about is for systemd
users to be able to run things that only have sysv init scripts, not
systemd unit files. There are no significant packages left in Debian
that require it, so it doesn't matter for Debian. Its removal has been a
Debian systemd maintainer goal.

Separately, there are people *not using systemnd* on Debian. They don't
have systemd at all! They do not have the package that you warn is going
away. They will therefore be utterly unaffected by that.

So, what you keep going on about is a non-event for both groups.

> Yes I do know what systemd-sysv is for (I run my own custom distribution).
> 
>     * Support for System V service scripts is deprecated and will be
>       removed in v258. Please make sure to update your software
>       *now* to include a native systemd unit file instead of a legacy
>       System V script to retain compatibility with future systemd releases.

You are lecturing someone who is not a user of systemd, about what systemd
requires its users to do.

A piece of software that has a sysv init script keeps working with sysv
init no matter if systemd removes support for ice cream on Tuesdays or
turns your mother into an aardvark. Such people do not care what systemd
does or does not do, because they don't use it! Imagine that!

I am genuinely amazed that this concept is so hard to understand. A new
low for debian-user discourse.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275033

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:16:16PM +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:

[...]

> And that "SysV backward compatibility" has been eliminated from systemd

Exactly. Thus, as a SysV init user, I don't need that package. Actually,
it would be counterproductive for me to install it...

> > I have the impression you don't even know what systemd-sysv
> > is for.
> 
> Yes I do know what systemd-sysv is for (I run my own custom distribution).

[...]

I don't know what you know or not. I just reported on my impression.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275034

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 19:16:16 +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
> Yes I do know what systemd-sysv is for (I run my own custom distribution).
> 
>     * Support for System V service scripts is deprecated and will be
>       removed in v258. Please make sure to update your software
>       *now* to include a native systemd unit file instead of a legacy
>       System V script to retain compatibility with future systemd releases.

The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
to packages.debian.org.

I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
the *next* release after trixie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275036

Hello,

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:51:40PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
> > The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
> > to packages.debian.org.
> >
> > I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
> > release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
> > the *next* release after trixie.
> 
> It is the future.

But is it Web Scale?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

Your contributions to this thread have made me long for the farm.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275039

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 06:56:08PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:51:40PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
> > > The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
> > > to packages.debian.org.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
> > > release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
> > > the *next* release after trixie.
> > 
> > It is the future.
> 
> But is it Web Scale?
> 
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

No, "web scale" would be Chrome ignoring the hosts setting and phoning
home for DNS. Don't ask me how I know.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275067 — Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem

On Sunday, 01-12-2024 at 06:12 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 06:56:08PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:51:40PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
> > > > The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
> > > > to packages.debian.org.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
> > > > release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
> > > > the *next* release after trixie.
> > > 
> > > It is the future.
> > 
> > But is it Web Scale?
> > 
> >     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

I want to thank everyone for chatting about this systemd and init.

https://itsfoss.com/systemd-init/

And thanks for the cute video. I enjoyed watching and then reading through the comments, followed by some research on the topic. 

I have a hard enough time getting to know Linux, but the rate of change that is happening not only causes me confusion about what is current, but also adds the burden of relearning, never knowing what I have learned is still valid or not.

Some people like crossword puzzles or jigsaw puzzles to 'keep their brain alive and working', for me, following the ever changing architecture of Linux is far more challenging and "fun?".

Doing some research of Systemd/Journald, I think I saw comments saying that /etc/hosts and /etc/network/interfaces will be replaced and deprecated some time in the coming future.  Can anyone make comment if this is true?  

Seems that there are a few more changes coming to Linux too.

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/deprecated-linux-command-replacements

Coming from the Windows ecosystem to Linux, one that I found attractive was the philosophy of the Unix operating system, but progress seems to differ in its ideas.
"Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams because that is a universal interface."

Is there a "list of coming major design changing in Linux" somewhere on the Internet? Could make my life easier if there was.

George



> 
> No, "web scale" would be Chrome ignoring the hosts setting and phoning
> home for DNS. Don't ask me how I know.
> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> t
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275072 — Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem

On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 11:02:07 +1100, George at Clug wrote:
> Is there a "list of coming major design changing in Linux" somewhere on the Internet? Could make my life easier if there was.

I would just like to point out that there isn't a single "Linux
ecosystem".  There are many Linux-based distributions, and each one
works differently.

Changes that Red Hat plans to introduce to its distribution are not
necessarily going to be embraced by other distributions, including
Debian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275073 — Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem

On Sunday, 01-12-2024 at 11:09 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 11:02:07 +1100, George at Clug wrote:
> > Is there a "list of coming major design changing in Linux" somewhere on the Internet? Could make my life easier if there was.
> 
> I would just like to point out that there isn't a single "Linux
> ecosystem".  There are many Linux-based distributions, and each one
> works differently.

A fair comment. But how many Linux distributions won't end up implementing Systemd, wayland, nftables, etc.


> 
> Changes that Red Hat plans to introduce to its distribution are not
> necessarily going to be embraced by other distributions, including
> Debian.
> 

True, though Red Hat has and will play a big part in guiding Linux's future. Though just one of many who do.

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275080 — Re: where is mail.log and the changing Linux ecosystem

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:09:54PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 11:02:07 +1100, George at Clug wrote:
> > Is there a "list of coming major design changing in Linux" somewhere on the Internet? Could make my life easier if there was.
> 
> I would just like to point out that there isn't a single "Linux
> ecosystem".  There are many Linux-based distributions, and each one
> works differently.

It's kind of an "ecosystem of ecosystems" like the Internet is kind
of a "net of nets". So let's call it an... Interecosystem?

OK, OK, I'm going get some breakfast ;-)

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275133

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 5:32 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:51:40PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
> > > The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
> > > to packages.debian.org.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
> > > release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
> > > the *next* release after trixie.
> >
> > It is the future.
>
> But is it Web Scale?
>
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

This is too funny! "Pipe your data to /dev/null. The writes to the
database will be veryfast!"

> Your contributions to this thread have made me long for the farm.

Lol...

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275037

> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 1:33 PM
> From: "Greg Wooledge" <greg@wooledge.org>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: where is mail.log
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 19:16:16 +0100, pocket@homemail.com wrote:
> > Yes I do know what systemd-sysv is for (I run my own custom distribution).
> >
> >     * Support for System V service scripts is deprecated and will be
> >       removed in v258. Please make sure to update your software
> >       *now* to include a native systemd unit file instead of a legacy
> >       System V script to retain compatibility with future systemd releases.
>
> The version of systemd in trixie (and also in sid) is 257 according
> to packages.debian.org.
>
> I don't know whether that's the version trixie is going to use upon
> release, but if it is, then your v258 cutoff won't be relevant until
> the *next* release after trixie.
>
>

It is the future.

The debian issue will be to deal with all the things systemd is bringing and SysV is not supporting.

Is debian going to drop SysV?

My custom distribution already deals with the v258 cutoff.
It is a rolling release type and does have major releases.

What happens when /etc/hosts goes away?
As you see from my earlier post I have already dealt with that and for that matter /etc/fstab also.

[alarm@alarm ~]$ cat /etc/hosts
# Static table lookup for hostnames.
# See hosts(5) for details.

[alarm@alarm ~]$ cat /etc/fstab
# Static information about the filesystems.
# See fstab(5) for details.

# <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>

Some distributions have dealt with the changes also.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275030

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 06:31:56PM +0100, Scott Andrews wrote:
> > From: "Andy Smith" <andy@strugglers.net>
> > Yes, that is what is being said: it is still possible to run Debian
> > without systemd. People are doing it. There are package maintainers that
> > wish to let people do it. Surprise! It's a funny old world.
> 
> Well I didn't say you couldn't

So what exactly *are* you saying?

Bearing in mind you have replied to someone who has said it is
possible to use Debian without systemd with comments like

    "You did not comprehend what I posted."

    and

    "They have dropped all sysV support."

only to then reply

    "Well I didn't say you couldn't"

You're not making a consistent argument, so if we have to judge who is
not comprehending…

> > > Since debian is using systemd for their init system debian will have
> > > to come into the here and now.
> 
> And debian is light years away from properly using systemd.

What deficiencies do you think exist in Debian 12 with regard to
systemd use?

> systemd-sysv  252.31-1~deb12u1
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Gone not longer supported

You've already conceded in the this very same email that it's possible
to run Debian without systemd so for those who do, it does not matter
what is or isn't in the systemd package, as they don't have it
installed!

> debian will need to see the lite or change to sysV init

What is involved in "seeing the lite" here? What exactly is it that you
think needs to change?

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275129

pocket@homemail.com writes:

> You did not comprehend what I posted.  I am on the systemd mail list.
> They have dropped all sysV support.

Does it really even matter if there's SysV support in systemd? You can
still put

ExecStart=your-sysv-init-script start

in your systemd service file and I don't think that's going away. Same
for other parameters like stop/restart/whatever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#274977

Bitfox wrote: 
> My OS is debian 12 without GUI.
> 
> After I installed postifx by apt, I can't find the path to mail.log.
> 
> the log file in /var/log doesn't exist.
> 
> do you know where is my mail.log now?

by default, it's in /var/log.

If it is not there:

- does /etc/postfix/*.cf specify some other place?
- is systemd's journal swallowing it?
- is it being swallowed by another syslog program that is
  sending logs elsewhere?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web