To CTTE,
In the wait for your decision next week, many of us assume that you take
into consideration the many misleading and false statements that have
been written about about sysvinit + openrc/insserv.
Additionally, consider this, please:
Adopting systemd (and gnome, dbus->kdbus, wayland, etc d
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#727708: init system resolution - revised proposal"):
> How confident are you that the entire technical committee and the
> community of people filing bugs in the future will share your
> interpretation of that statement in the resolution,
I'm c
Keith Packard writes ("Re: Bug#727708: init system resolution - revised
proposal"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Ian, Bdale, Andy, Don and Russ agreed on IRC that this was a good
> > ballot. Steve, Colin, Keith: let us know, and perhaps we can start
> > the vote so
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#727708: init system resolution - revised proposal"):
> A couple of comments inline below.
...
> There is an issue with this wording, which I don't think is intended.
> Sometimes, the easiest way to maintain support for multiple init systems
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
> > >a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
> > >tolerable.
> >
> > For instance, consider a gnome
Petr Baudis writes:
> Would such a particular example of (greatly, but not fatally) degraded
> operation fall within the intent of this proposal?
I think so, yes.
I do think forcing users who've made a conscious decision to live this
way to click through a warning pop-up on each login is rath
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ian, Bdale, Andy, Don and Russ agreed on IRC that this was a good
> ballot. Steve, Colin, Keith: let us know, and perhaps we can start
> the vote sooner.
I can vote with this ballot. Sorry I had to disappear in the middle of
the meeting; that all turned out for naught as t
Hi!
Apologies for jumping into the discussion even though I'm not a Debian
Developer.
> == dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==
>
>This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
>continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
>
>So
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
> >a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
> >tolerable.
>
> For instance, consider a gnome-session-systemd package which use
A couple of comments inline below.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> == dependencies rider version T (Tight coupling) ==
>
>This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
>continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
>
>Software may require a specific init sy
We had a good drafting session on IRC. Here are the results.
I hereby propose (and propose and do not accept amendments as
necessary), so as to provide the following options:
DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific
11 matches
Mail list logo
