On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> >
> > 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
> >maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
>
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
>install systemd by default on new instal
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Why? Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
>> what's the point?
>
> It affirms the decisions which have been made by the other teams in
> Debian, and resolves this particul
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> > warranted from my side. I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> > are.
> I call for a vote on the
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Why? Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
> what's the point?
It affirms the decisions which have been made by the other teams in
Debian, and resolves this particular issue. Issues which are properly
submitted to the CTTE have
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I call for a vote on the following resolution to 762194:
[...]
> ==OPTION A==
I vote
A > FD.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved
by brute strength a
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
>> discussion.
>
>> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
>> don't believe
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> warranted from my side. I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> are.
I call for a vote on the following resolution to 762194:
==BEGIN==
In #762194, the Technical Co
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.
> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
> don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.
Sorry to take so
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>any issues with the transition by:
>
>a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>default init in grub (#757298)
For the com
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>> >any issues with the transition by:
>> >
>> >a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>> >
[ Resending to bug address rather than just ctte list ]
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>> >any issues with the transition by:
>> >
>> >a) Providing a f
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
> >any issues with the transition by:
> >
> >a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
> >default init in grub (#757298
Don Armstrong writes:
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>any issues with the transition by:
>
>a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>default init in grub (#757298)
>
>b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-stand
Thanks for the updates; the current version in debian-ctte git (as of
commit e43bfb9cd1f6316ed01a58a4a248e82fc3825850) looks good to me.
- Josh Triplett
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'd used "the Technical Committee considered" rather intentionally in
> the wording I suggested, to avoid any of the controversy around "was
> asked" from the previous last decision. Not going to push for that,
> just pointing it out as intentional.
We r
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:35:32 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194. #762194 was
> > not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
> > "init" to change the alternative order.
>
> W
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194. #762194 was
> not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
> "init" to change the alternative order.
Well, more specifically, it was to override the transition plan (namel
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:10 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.
A few comments below.
> ==BEGIN==
>
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
> §6.1.4 to override the decision of the init pack
I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
discussion.
Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.
==BEGIN==
In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
§6.1.4
20 matches
Mail list logo
