rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3694 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/systemd.mdwn b/open_issues/systemd.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index d2506046..00000000
--- a/open_issues/systemd.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,3694 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 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_porting]]
-
-  * <http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd>
-
-  * <http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html>,
-    <http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-update.html>
-
-  * <http://lwn.net/Articles/389149/>
-
-Will need to have something like Linux'
-[*cgroups*](http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt;hb=HEAD).
-Introduction: [*Ressourcen-Verwaltung mit Control Groups (cgroups)*
-(german)](http://www.pro-linux.de/artikel/2/1464/ressourcen-verwaltung-mit-control-groups-cgroups.html),
-Daniel Gollub, Stefan Seyfried, 2010-10-14.
-
-Likely there's also some other porting needed.
-
-
-# Discussion
-
-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.
-    <guillem>
-      https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00447.html
-      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
-      implement
-    <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
-      FSF
-    <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
-      patches
-
-
-### 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
-      features
-    < 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
-      yet?
-    < azeem_> teythoon: no idea, but apparently:
-      http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/recommended-way-to-enable-disable-services/20347#20347
-    < 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
-      unimpressive?
-     * 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:
-      http://people.canonical.com/~jhunt/presentations/debconf13/upstart-debconf-2013.pdf
-    < braunr> teythoon: actually, from the presentation, i'd tend to like
-      upstart
-    < 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>
-      http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~upstart-devel/upstart/trunk/view/head:/init/job_process.c
-    < 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:
-      https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-q-upstart-overcome-ptrace-limitations
-    < 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
-      machine
-    < 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>
-      (http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign)
-      btw
-    < 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
-      co-mentor
-      https://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects#OpenRC_init_system_in_Debian
-    < 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
-      available
-    <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
-      cgroups
-    <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
-      either
-    <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
-      conditions?
-    <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
-      proc_getmsgport
-    <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
-      translator
-    <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
-      /hurd/init
-    <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
-      reliability
-    <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
-      /hurd/pfinet
-    <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
-      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Task-Special-Ports.html#Task-Special-Ports
-    <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
-      incorrect
-    <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
-      then?
-    <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
-      trustworthy
-    <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
-      something?
-    <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
-      maintainers?
-    <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
-      things
-    <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
-      fshelp_start_translator_long?
-    <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
-      underlying_open_fn,
-    <youpi> +  /* XXX this looks wrong to me, bootstrap is used twice as
-      argument... */
-    <youpi>                                    bootstrap,
-      MACH_NOTIFY_NO_SENDERS, 0,
-    <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
-      processes
-    <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
-      for
-    <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
-      tasks
-    <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
-      it
-    <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
-      groups
-    <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
-      memory_object_reply.defs
-    <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
-      https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openrc&suite=experimental
-    <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:
-      http://darnassus.sceen.net/~teythoon/heap/sysvinit/
-    <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
-      context
-    <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
-      boot
-    <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
-      sysvinit
-    <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
-      backlog
-    <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
-      posts
-    <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
-      stdio
-    <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
-      rxvt
-    <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
-      GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX=""  #GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID=true
-    <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
-      communicated
-    <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
-      heresy
-    <braunr> if you want something really efficient, you want it very well
-      integrated
-    <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
-      control
-    <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
-      Hurd… 
-    <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
-      first
-    <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:
-      http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/posts/cgroupfs-is-as-cgroupy-as-it-gets/
-    <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
-      scripts
-    <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
-      anyway
-    <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
-      service: 
-    <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
-      keyboard-setup
-    <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
-      existence...
-    <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
-      Fedora...
-    <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
-      project
-    <antrik> (specifically, GNOME is now pretty much tied to logind AIUI, which
-      is not entirely inseparable from systemd -- but again, the cost is
-      prohibitive...)
-    <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
-      seat
-    <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
-      multi-seat
-    <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
-      costs?)
-    <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
-      world...
-    <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
-      changes
-    <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
-      rest
-    <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
-      provided
-    <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
-      interchangeable
-    <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
-      themselves
-    <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
-      isn't
-    <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
-      people
-    <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
-      community
-    <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
-      obvious
-    <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
-      hot-pluggable?
-    <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
-      obsolete
-    <braunr> i'm not saying it shouldn't be done
-    <braunr> i'm saying it should be done while sacrificing other important
-      things
-    <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
-      works
-    <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
-      maintainers
-    <antrik> the systemd guys are breaking this contract, by explicitly
-      refusing, up front, to take *any* effort to accomodate other projects'
-      needs
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-28
-
-    <azeem_> teythoon:
-      https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/EgKwQV8te7s
-    <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
-      work:)
-    <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
-      (history) 
-    <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
-      sysvinit's?
-    <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
-      it)
-
-
-## 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
-      record
-    <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
-      persistent
-    <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
-      bug.
-    <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:
-      http://paste.debian.net/79438/
-    <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
-      responsible
-    <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:
-      http://paste.debian.net/79438/
-    <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
-      arguments
-    <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
-      scripts 
-    <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
-      immediately
-    <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
-      disappeared
-    <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
-      manually
-    <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
-      print-outs:)
-    <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
-      rcS.d/.
-    <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>
-      http://darnassus.sceen.net/gitweb/teythoon/packaging/hurd.git/commitdiff/6da3e0be8fde0594bd84a13536d9d93048186790
-    * 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
-
-[[glibc/debian/experimental]], *glibc 2.18 vs. GCC 4.8*?
-
-
-## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-03
-
-    <pere>
-      http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Testing_sysvinit_from_experimental_in_Debian_Hurd.html
-    <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!
-
-
-## [[glibc_IOCTLs]], `TIOCCONS`
-
-
-## 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
-      less.
-    <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:
-      http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Testing_sysvinit_from_experimental_in_Debian_Hurd.html
-      >
-    <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
-      booting?
-    <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
-      -p'
-    <teythoon> you can avoid it for the time being by using reboot-hurd or
-      halt-hurd
-    <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
-      happening
-    <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
-      silent.
-    <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
-      umount[nfs]?
-    <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
-      recovered?
-    <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
-
-[[hurd/translator/mtab/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
-      bin/login
-    <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
-      http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html
-      ?
-    <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
-      properly
-    <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
-      directory
-    <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
-      appears
-    <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
-      down
-    <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
-      http://paste.debian.net/plain/80570/
-    <gg0> there i got "settrans -apfg /lib/rc/init.d" which vanished with first
-      patch
-    <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
-      filesystems"
-    <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
-      http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/
-    <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
-      /|/proc|/dev|/.dev|/dev/pts|/dev/shm|/dev/.static/dev|/proc/*|/sys|/sys/*|/run|/run/*|/lib/rc/init.d)
-    <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
-      REG_MTPTS
-    <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
-      things
-    <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
-      halt/reboot
-    <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
-      REG_MTPTS
-    <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
-      /lib/rc/init.d/started/
-    <gg0> the latter is populate at boot, that's why i said twice to become
-      effective
-    <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
-      one
-    <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
-      one
-    <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
-      one?
-    <gg0> my guess is it takes the first and only the first which Provides:
-      umountfs
-    <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
-      problem
-    <pere> gg0: removing the umountfs.* files did not help, as far as I can
-      tell.
-    <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
-      any?
-    <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
-      http://paste.debian.net/plain/80659/
-    <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
-      /hurd/procfs?
-    <gg0> or can they be "normalized"?
-    <gg0> domount mount_noupdate tmpfs shmfs /run tmpfs
-      -onosuid,noexec,size=10%,mode=755
-    <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
-      sysvinit.
-    <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
-      content?
-    <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
-      why:-D
-    <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 #
-      SIGTERM...done.
-    <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?
-
-[[hurd/translator/mtab/discussion]].
-
-    <azeem> gnu_srs: didn't he say that this is getting fixed in his latest
-      patchset?
-    <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
-      bit
-    <teythoon> root@thinkbox ~src # uname -s; mount | grep /run
-    <teythoon> Linux
-    <teythoon> tmpfs on /run type tmpfs
-      (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,size=306952k,mode=755)
-    <teythoon> tmpfs on /run/lock type tmpfs
-      (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=5120k)
-    <teythoon> tmpfs on /run/shm type tmpfs
-      (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=613900k)
-    <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
-      hurd-console
-    <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
-      happen 
-    <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
-      S20wdm
-    <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
-      number+1.
-    <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
-      boot...
-    <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
-      consideration
-
-
-## 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](http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/07/threads.html#00269), a
-[message](http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/07/msg00281.html) 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
-  * RLIMIT_RTTIME
-  * RLIMIT_RTPRIO
-  * ionice
-  * SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK
-  * /proc/$PID/stat
-  * fanotify
-  * inotify
-  * TIOCVHANGUP
-  * IP_TRANSPORT
-  * audit
-  * F_SETPIPE_SZ
-  * CLONE_xxx
-  * BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG
-  * PR_SET_NAME
-  * PR_CAPBSET_DROP
-  * PR_SET_PDEATHSIG
-  * PR_GET_SECUREBITS
-  * /proc/$PID/comm
-  * /proc/$PID/cmdline
-  * /proc/cmdline
-  * numerous GNU APIs like asprintf
-  * [[SOCK_CLOEXEC, O_CLOEXEC|secure_file_descriptor_handling]]
-  * /proc/$PID/fd
-  * /dev/tty0
-  * TIOCLINUX
-  * VT_ACTIVATE
-  * TIOCNXCL
-  * KDSKBMODE
-  * /dev/random
-  * /dev/char/
-  * openat() and friends
-  * /proc/$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