rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 224 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/hurd_init.mdwn b/open_issues/hurd_init.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index cc06935c..00000000
--- a/open_issues/hurd_init.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,224 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
-
-
-# [[!message-id "20130625154749.17799.36923@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de"]]
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-22
-
-    <teythoon> ok, so back to the drawing board for the next big issue, the
-      potential proc and init merge
-    <teythoon> Roland had some harsh words for that proposal, but noone else
-      raised concerns
-    <youpi> noone else does not mean much
-    <youpi> I guess only Roland actually understands the matter
-    <youpi> so I'd tend to believe him
-    <teythoon> even though, his criticism was so superficial, he could at least
-      be a bit more specific...
-    <braunr> i agree that the argument, being simply based on vague principle,
-      isn't very convincing
-    <teythoon> so, what should I do?
-    <braunr> you can either keep them separate, or fight with roland
-    <teythoon> common braunr, I need a little more guidance in these kind of
-      social issues
-    <teythoon> a statement like this is of little use ;)
-    <braunr> that's the best i can give you
-    <teythoon> :/
-    <braunr> i have one patch "fixing" HZ on the hurd, and i even get to fight
-      about it
-    <teythoon> I understand Roland has been around forever and keeps an eye on
-      stuff
-    <teythoon> but could/would he block a patch for hurd if e.g. youpi would
-      accept it
-    <teythoon> i.e. how much control has he in practice?
-    <teythoon> me fighting with him over a patch is of little value for anyone
-      and I don't care to do so
-    <braunr> not much i suppose now
-    <braunr> but we also have to agree with the change
-    <braunr> with *real* arguments
-    <braunr> (well, if it was up to me, i'd even merge exec with proc so ..)
-    <teythoon> ok, so I whip up a patch to see how it goes in practice and
-      present it so we could talk about the issue with something to look at
-      first
-    <braunr> although maybe not ;p
-    <braunr> you'll hit the same reaction
-    <teythoon> from Roland?
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> and youpi said he tends to trust what roland says
-    <braunr> so let's discuss the pros and cons a bit more
-    <teythoon> yes, but I'd honor his concerns if they were properly
-      presented. just telling me to hack on linux instead even though I think I
-      have demonstrated that I do want to work on Hurd is so childish in my
-      eyes that I do not consider that a valid argument at the moment
-    <teythoon> sure, shoot
-    <braunr> well, functionally, they're unrelated
-    <teythoon> head -n1 init/init.c
-    <teythoon> /* Start and maintain hurd core servers and system run state
-    <youpi> and thus it makes sense to make them separate, even if it does not
-      seem to bring anything useful now
-    <youpi> history has shown that it makes a bed for nice things later
-    <braunr> teythoon: that's not what proc is about
-    <teythoon> braunr: I know
-    <teythoon> braunr: that's what init is about in its own words ;)
-    <youpi> teythoon: also, "simplifying the code" is not necessarily an
-      argument that would be considered
-    <youpi> depending on the simplification
-    <youpi> linux made it all simple by using a monolithic kernel :)
-    <youpi> separating concerns is complex
-    <youpi> but in the end it usually pays off on the Hurd
-    <youpi> personally, I'd be fine with Guillem's solution, and renumbering
-      init's pid in Debian
-    <youpi> there's a pending question from Roland actually: what information
-      is exchanged between init and proc in the end?
-    <youpi> that's actually the point of the discussion: is that information
-      really big or not
-    <teythoon> I'm sorry, you lost me, where did he ask that question?
-    <pinotree> $ git grep proc_getmsgport | egrep '[0-9]' ← /hurd/init as pid 1
-      is hardcoded in few places
-    <youpi> teythoon: he didn't ask it this way, but that's the question I had
-      to be able to answer his
-    <youpi> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
-    <youpi> > That's not what he said. He said there is a lot of information
-    <youpi> > propagated from init to proc, and thus the separation is
-      questionable.
-    <youpi> Are you talking about bootstrap, or what?
-    <youpi> as I haven't investigated much, I couldn't answer this
-    <youpi> pinotree: right. We could patch these in Debian
-    <teythoon> youpi: so, shall I refresh, test and refine Guillems patch and
-      resend it?
-    <youpi> it's probably an easier way
-    <teythoon> ok, I start by doing that
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-25
-
-    <teythoon> pinotree: btw, there are two /sbin/init processes even with my
-      hacked up init/proc variant where /sbin/init gets to be pid 1
-    <pinotree> never seen that
-    <pinotree> what are their parents?
-    <teythoon> pinotree: well, pid 1 is /sbin/init now, pid 13 or something has
-      the parent 1
-    <teythoon> looks like init forks or something
-    <pinotree> i guess your sysvinit is compiled without INITDEBUG?
-    <pinotree> nothing in syslog either?
-    <teythoon> pinotree: it's compiled like the sysvinit shipped with debian
-    <pinotree> teythoon: do you have custom additions in inittab?
-    <teythoon> pinotree: a terminal for my serial console
-    <teythoon> *getty
-    <pinotree> are the getty started correctly for you, btw?
-    <teythoon> pinotree: yes
-    <pinotree> interesting
-    <pinotree> teythoon: back then, they were costantly respawning, with hurd's
-      getty's failing to start when exec'ed by (sysv)init
-    <pinotree> wonder what changed
-    <teythoon> pinotree: cool, magically went away then :)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-29
-
-    <teythoon> youpi: I need some feedback on the not freezing translators
-      issue, more specifically whether I understood you correctly in your mail
-      from wednesday (20130724131552.GG9576@type.bordeaux.inria.fr)
-    <teythoon> oh yeah, and I had some questions yesterday too, about rpctrace
-      and dead-name notifications, specifically why /hurd/init is not receiving
-      any for the root translator and the exec server
-    <braunr> teythoon: more details please
-    <teythoon> ok, so /hurd/init is registering for dead name notifications for
-      essential tasks
-    <teythoon> the rootfs and exec both register as essential tasks at init and
-      init requests successfully dead name notifications for them
-    <teythoon> if you e.g. kill the auth server, /hurd/init will notice and
-      crash the system
-    <teythoon> if you kill exec or the rootfs, /hurd/init does not get notified
-    <teythoon> I verified this with gdb and an subhurd
-    <teythoon> I'm puzzled by this, as the kernel is the one who sends the
-      notifications, right?
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> teythoon: where is the problem ?
-    <teythoon> and it is not that the system is not sending any messages, it
-      is, I see the msgcount increase over time
-    <teythoon> braunr: dunno, as far as I can tell the kernel does not deliver
-      the notification for rootfs and exec
-    <braunr> oh
-    <teythoon> those are the two processes loaded by grub, maybe they are
-      different somehow
-    <braunr> is that affecting your work ?
-    <teythoon> no, not directly, I strayed around at the weekend, trying to
-      think of cool stuff hurd could do
-    <teythoon> youpi: I need some feedback on the not freezing translators
-      issue, more specifically whether I understood you correctly in your mail
-      from wednesday (20130724131552.GG9576@type.bordeaux.inria.fr)
-    <youpi> teythoon: ok, now I'm available for the not-freezing-translators
-      thing :)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-05
-
-    <teythoon> youpi: I'm in the process of producing a unified
-      sysvinit-as-pid1 and please-dont-kill-important-processes patch series
-    <teythoon> youpi: there is one issue with changing /hurd/inits pid, libcs
-      reboot() also assumes that it has the pid 1
-    <youpi> argl
-    <youpi> that's bad, because it's then an ABI, not just an internal thing
-    <teythoon> hardcoding the pid is the worst way of getting a handle of any
-      server :/
-    <teythoon> I've been thinking to make it explicit by binding it to
-      /servers/startup or something
-    <youpi> that would be more hurdish than using a pid, yes
-    <teythoon> yes, and not only does it break the abi, but in a bad way
-      too. if the libc is updated before the hurd, the shutdown sequence is
-      broken in a way that the translators aren't synced :/
-    <teythoon> youpi: as a workaround, we could make reboot() signal both pid 1
-      and 2
-    <youpi> at worse pid 1 shouldn't get harmed by receiving a startup_reboot
-      RPC indeed
-    <teythoon> yes
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-16
-
-    <teythoon> grml, the procfs hardcodes the kernels pid :/
-    <teythoon> there's always one more thing to fix...
-    <teythoon> uh, and we made pids.h a private header, so no nice constant for
-      the procfs translator :/
-    <teythoon> server lookup by hardcoding the pid should be banned...
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-16
-
-    <teythoon> youpi: I'm thinking about splitting /hurd/init into /hurd/init
-      and /hurd/startup
-    <teythoon> that way, you could also merge the init as pid1 patches
-    <teythoon> that should be doable within the week
-    <youpi> that would probably be better received by Roland than merging init
-      into proc :)
-    <teythoon> yes, I suppose so :D
-    <youpi> perhaps you should start the discussion on the list about it
-      already, with just a sketch of which would do what
-    <teythoon> ok
-    <teythoon> fwiw I like the name startup b/c it speaks the startup protocol
-    <braunr> teythoon: +1 startup
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-23
-
-    <teythoon> I've been hacking on init/startup, I've looked into cleaning it
-      up
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-07
-
-    <teythoon> braunr: btw, what do you think of my /hurd/startup proposal?
-    <braunr> i haven't read it in detail yet
-    <braunr> it's about separating init right ?
-    <teythoon> yes