I'd like to make one last plea in support of sysvinit, since I see no
compelling reason to rush to something else in time for jessie.
Firstly, it is already much easier to use alternative init systems
since the TC discussion really got going in December. init-select
makes it super easy to swap be
Ian Jackson writes:
> Yes. I would still prefer to see something like that. I don't
> remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> but perhaps something like
>
> We expect that Debian will continue to support mkultiple init
> systems for the foreseeable future.
>
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 19:11:52 -0500 (EST)
Thilos Rich wrote:
> Init should be simple, secure, and get out of the way. It should not take
> over the system. We should not be forced to use an init that does.
>
> This man said it best:
> wizardofbits.tumblr.com/post/45232318557/systemd-more-like-shi
Marko Randjelovic writes ("Bug#727708: Init should be simple, secure, and get
out of the way. It should not take over the system. We should not be forced to
use one that does."):
> Real power is in communicability, [etc. etc.]
Please stop. This kind of argument has been made many times already.
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Yes. I would still prefer to see something like that. I don't
> > remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> > but perhaps something like
> >
> > We expect that Debian will c
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> true for at least some values of "support".
OK, good.
After a bit of wordsmit
On 03/02/2014 14:17, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hence those TC members that don't want to see its default should be
> trying to figure out how to get 1 of the 4 to vote something else
> above systemd.
Shouldn't the TC members focus on their own vote and leave the others
to focus on theirs? Likewise,
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> > jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> > true f
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> Adrian, does that address your point ? I think that phrasing makes it
> clear that the remaining text (whether T or L) applies past jessie,
> too.
To expand on what Adrian says in his next mails, the result is that
you might hav
Jonathan Dowland writes ("Bug#727708: Vote sysvinit 4 jessie"):
> On 03/02/2014 14:17, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Hence those TC members that don't want to see its default should be
> > trying to figure out how to get 1 of the 4 to vote something else
> > above systemd.
>
> Shouldn't the TC member
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> Bdale, if this is not acceptable to you then please say.
Bdale has said on irc that he's happy. So I hereby withdraw my
previous amendments and propose and accept and do not accept
amendments so as to produce the following s
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> > jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> > true for a
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > == clarification text for all versions except GR ==
> >
> > This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem for
> > jessie. We expect that D
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I would be happy to do this. Anyone object to me prefixing
>Therefore, for jessie and later releases:
> before the T/L "Software ..." paragraphs ?
Following another exchange on IRC I have now done this in git, and I
hereby p
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
So just to ensure I don't misunderstand:
The way I read the texts, you could have e.g. Upstart as default init
system and GNOME depend on systemd with UT? Meaning: software co
Olav Vitters writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>
> So just to ensure I don't misunderstand:
> The way I read the texts, you could have e.g. Upst
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:33AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Finally, it is worth considering that there is very little chance for
> upstart to win this particular vote. Given the 4:4 systemd:upstart
> split and existing statements from the 4 on the systemd side, there is
> very little chanc
I think the issue of whether packages can depend on a specific init to be pid 1
is essentially identical to whether packages can depend on a specific kernel
(Linux vs FreeBSD vs Hurd) to be running.
I'm not sure what the exact Debian policy is for that, but just copying that
seems to me the mos
Bill Myers writes:
> I think the issue of whether packages can depend on a specific init to
> be pid 1 is essentially identical to whether packages can depend on a
> specific kernel (Linux vs FreeBSD vs Hurd) to be running.
> I'm not sure what the exact Debian policy is for that, but just copyin
Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's conceptually similar, but since kernels are tied directly to a
> Debian architecture, it's easier to handle the kernel case using our
> existing infrastructure. There just isn't a binary package for that
> architecture if it doesn't work with that kernel, and most of the
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So all deferring for another cycle does is leave Debian with annoying
> cumbersome init scripts and unsolvable race conditions for another cycle.
Which have already been solved for a long time now. It's not like a
bunch of new sysvinit bugs
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On 03/02/2014 14:17, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Hence those TC members that don't want to see its default should be
>> trying to figure out how to get 1 of the 4 to vote something else
>> above systemd.
>
> Shouldn't the TC members focus on t
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> So all deferring for another cycle does is leave Debian with annoying
>> cumbersome init scripts and unsolvable race conditions for another cycle.
>
> Which have already been solved for a long time now.
No, they ha
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> So all deferring for another cycle does is leave Debian with annoying
>>> cumbersome init scripts and unsolvable race conditions for another cycle.
>>
>> Whic
24 matches
Mail list logo
