Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: On diversity"):
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are
> > required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other
> > than systemd probably, and don't see
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Thoughts on Init System Debate"):
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:41:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
...
> > I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc, nor have
> > I taken into account planned features and development in either systemd
> > or
Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all"):
> On 01/19/2014 08:15 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > * The daemon does not double-fork; it runs in the foreground of
> >of its initial process.
>
> Something like start-s
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 03:26:31PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The main objections to some of the upstreams' behaviours are,
> > basically, "they don't care what anyone else th
(Thorsten: your message went to debian-ctte@lists when it should have
gone to the bug report. Can you try to make whatever cause that not
do that again please ?
Philipp: therefore, your message also went to the list directly and
not via the bug.)
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: On diversit
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> I propose we take the simplest possible "next step". [...]
...
> Therefore, I call for votes on the following ballot.
Bdale, I am really quite upset by this. Not because you have
pre-empted my own draft - you're qu
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> I've spent much of the last few days pondering the current state
> of the TC's init system debate, and what our next step(s) should be.
Also, why have you not send this to the bug report ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> I think there's general consensus in the TC that a GR overriding this
> decision should be done with a simple majority (at least among the people
> who have commented). If a GR goes forward, I'll propose that th
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> For the same reason that I didn't include the GR over-ride. I don't
> think of this as the final word on the issue.
I find this deeply unconvincing. I am very disappointed that you
haven't changed your mind on
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
contrary view expressed by a majority of the Developers in a
General Resolution.
2. Accordingly, all TC de
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy. Nothing outside of an init system's
Ian Jackson writes ("multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I hereby propose the following resolution:
> >1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
> I agree with this in principle, but I think thi
Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 16:59 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I hereby propose the following resolution:
> >
> >1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
&
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
I hereby propose and accept an amendment to add a new rubric paragraph
0, and I also
Colin Watson writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a first
> > step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the context of
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> Yeah, I would prefer that as well. I should have brought it up before I
> responded with my vote.
You are entitled to change your vote. I encourage you to do so.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be
>
> 1. systemd
>
> 2. upstart
>
> 3. openrc
>
> 4. sysvinit (no change)
>
> 5. requires further discussion.
It looks like this
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for
> jessie"):
> > The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be
> >
&g
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie"):
> > So that leaves my text from yesterday:
> >
> >M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> > foreseeable future, and so long as their re
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> > > foreseeable future, and so long as their respect
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I think there are the following three reasonable answers to Q1/Q2
> > taken together.
> >
> > i. Q1: Multiple in >jessie
> >
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> So to clarify, I think a proposal can be withdrawn, but once the
> vote has been called it can't be withdrawn, and you're left with
> things like not reaching quorum of voting FD over the other
> options.
Right.
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is
> "requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default
> one". But I would prefer to vote a ballot that doesn't m
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> > > foreseeable future, and so long as their respect
Ian Jackson writes ("init system gr override - formal resolution proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
> 1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
> about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
> c
Ian Jackson writes ("multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Of these (ii) would cause the non-default inits to rot. Unless anyone
> > thinks this is a useful option I don't think we should vote on it.
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie"):
> Do you agree with Russ and Bdale that it would be better not to
Wait, where did "Russ" come from there ? I meant Keith.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ..
I have taken Bdale's text, reformatted it a bit, and added the GR
rider and the multiple init systems rider texts.
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
For the multiple init systems ride
Ian Jackson writes ("TC resolution revised draft"):
> For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
> proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
> in a moment.
I see that Bdale has his own draft in git.
The differences
Ian Jackson writes ("TC resolution revised draft"):
> I'm going to follow up in a moment with a formal action to propose
> a resolution, starting the constitutional discussion period.
I hereby formally propose what I have called UM (text below).
I also hereby formally propo
Steven Chamberlain writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
> >
> > I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
> > has a preference for
Svante Signell writes ("Bug#727708: Cut-and paste typo"):
> I think you made a c-p typo, see below:
>
> > That will leave us voting on (most likely):
> >Dsystemd default in jessie, say nothing about multiple inits
> >DM systemd default in jessie, support multiple inits
> >Usy
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 2014-01-30 15:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Our voting system (Condorcet with "Schwartz Cloneproof Sequential
> > Dropping") is designed to cope with that. In actual practice I'm
> &g
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> So if we assume that upstart wins, would it be acceptable to depend on
> systemd (or vice versa)? We might then get a set called, say, Unity,
> depending on upstart and one called, say, GNOME, depending on systemd,
> which wo
Matthias Klumpp writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal - Don't like software, don't use it. Absolutely."):
> What would be the effecr if we decided to drop GNOME, because it
> depends on systemd?
In this hypothetical scenario:
It would be fairly easy for a downst
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 2014-01-30 15:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > == optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
> >
> >Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> >foreseeable fu
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
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
> involves having a family of p
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"):
> 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 confident that the policy ma
Sébastien Villemot writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
> P2: DL > UL > DT > UT
> P3: UT > UL > DL > DT
> P4: UT > UL > DL > DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
need to be voted on in a single ballot.
If one votes on T-v
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> [stuff]
Thanks for that, which I mostly agree with.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Thus, for me, all of the "T" variants in Ian's latest draft
> (<21226.41292.366504.997...
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> Thus, for me, all of the "T" variants in Ian's latest draft
> (<21226.41292.366504.997...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>) rank below FD.
Note that there is a difference, of course, between GR and FD, in the
votin
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Processed: block 726763 with 727708"):
> In other words: I think the technically correct thing here is obvious and
> simple and invariant with respect to any decision the TC is going to make;
(Disclaimer: I have had some wine and am tired. This may make no
sense or be
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal
resolution proposal"):
> As things stand, it seems that each set of dependency rider options will
> have some members of the TC voting them below FD. Which means I don't think
> we've actually gotten to the bottom of this issu
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
>This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
>continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
...
> there is an "in jessie" at the top, and it is stated nowhere that any
> part of this
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.
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
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 resul
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 pro
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
&
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 d
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
Nick Rhodes writes ("Bug#727708: "):
> So what are the "votes" for sysvinit, approx 130,000 ?
Please, STOP. These kind of messages aren't going to change anyone's
mind at this stage.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
The list of options, and full resolut
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.
Sorry not to give you an explicit heads-up a
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 6. FD further discussion
> > 7. UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> > 8. OT openrc default in jes
ong
> dozens. With nothing to call attention to itself, that message sat unread
> in my box among a pile of others until just now, when it's too late.
The whole of the body text was this:
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I would be
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
> actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
> have ignored.
I'm sorry if I also missed a mail.
> > Anyway, I think as regards T v
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I vote:
>
> 1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 2. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 3. FD further discussion
If you are serious about
I hereby change my vote:
1. FD further discussion
2. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
4. OL openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
5. VL sysvinit default in j
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
FD first: would you care
Don Armstrong writes ("Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?"):
> Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and
> their drafts?
I'd be happy to do that.
> If you believe a meeting would be useful, please respond, and delete all
> of the non-working dates.
...
The re
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
> concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
> don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's
> nec
Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> > Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
> >> > pid 1
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
> > alike
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?"):
> In this case I suggest to decide just the question of the default init
> system on Linux architectures first and address further details later if
> no consensus can be found elsewhere. Finding the correct wording then
> sho
(resend with the correct BTS email address)
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for
something simpler"):
> What does this mean in the concrete example that lead to the ctte bug?
> That is:
>
> Provided logind is only provided by systemd (the current situation).
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think what we're trying to say looks something like this:
...
> The result of that GR is A. However, the choice picked by the above
> algorithm is B. So B becomes the TC decision, despite the fact that A is
> the re
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > I vote:
> >
> > 1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT all
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> That is a very interesting clarification, and not one that seems at all
> obvious from the text of 'L'. 'L' talks about "Software outside of an init
> system's implementation", which does not seem like
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I hope we only have to go round this business once more!
Quite!
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Changing my vote to:
>
> 1. FD further discussion
With this and Colin's change of vote, 4 TC members have ranked FD
first. The outcome is no longer in doubt: FD wins.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> the GR isn't trying to override the
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > what form of words should be used
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
> > that has the right effect, please suggest som
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
> we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not going to defeat
> any option, so their position in your vote is largely irrelevant.
If
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
> and as reaction to that they are setting policy and that this will
> be allowed under 6.1
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution"):
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
> ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals
> consid
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to
interfaces"):
> * Colin said that it would be OK to depend on a stable interface such as
> logind-208 provided that multiple implementations could exist.
Colin, I think you need to clarify this. I think it matters very mu
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> It is not at all clear to me why the CTTE so desperately wants to
> automatically defer to a GR in their resolution. If there is consensus
> to defer to a GR with simple majority among the CTTE, surely it would be
> ea
Mike Bird writes ("[OFFLIST] - Possible trap to be avoided"):
> > So for the avoidance of doubt, we would put this into the TC
> > resolution:
> >
> > If the project passes by a General Resolution, a "position statement
> > about issues of the day", on the subject of init systems, the views
> >
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> [some quoted stuff]
>
> I'm a bit confused by this.
To be clear, none of the quoted text is from me.
> I find the votes expressed by TC members entirely consistent with their
> stated verbal positions, and if anything
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: [OFFLIST] - Possible trap to be avoided"):
> Mike, I hope you won't mind me replying in public.
>
> You are entirely right. I intend to add a sentence saying "before the
> release of jessie", which I think ought to be abou
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.
I have added the following texts to the draf
I think we need to set a timetable and a process that we can adhere
to, so that the process doesn't drag on indefinitely but so that
no-one is caught by surprise. We have aborted this twice and I don't
want to do it a third time. The solution to procedural cockup is
additional formality.
So, I t
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Agreed on both counts. I understand why Ian (was it?) wanted to have
> the "multiple init systems for the foreseeable future" text, as a
> statement of general intent, and I don't disagree with that. But I
> would pre
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: init system decision timetable"):
> * Some TC member formally proposes some set of L options. This
>should be the staunchest proponent of L, which I think is probably
>me. That starts the constitutional discussion period.
I therefore
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#727708: Steve Langasek Must
Not Vote"):
> With all the due respect to Steve, considering the fact that he is a very
> involved contributor of Upstart and judging from his position on this
> subject,
> I also think he should step down from partici
Stephen Frost writes ("Bug#727708: Steve Langasek Must Vote"):
> I don't agree with this. I have no reason to doubt Steve's ability to
Please, also, no messages defending Steve's involvement.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Please restrict posting to #727708"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:53:56PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Please give earnest consideration to limiting posting to #727708
> >(the init system technical committee bug) to only those members of
> >the committ
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
> and as reaction to that they are setting policy and that this will
> be allowed under 6.1
Paul Hedderly writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to
interfaces [and 1 more messages]"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to
> > interfaces"):
> >> I now understand Ian
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to
interfaces"):
> Hmm, I am reading Ian as against 3.
No, if there are multiple implementations then I am satisfied. In
practice I don't think the problem of implementations only
non-overlapping subsets of init systems will
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Here's what I think is the right technical policy, that we should be
> addressing with this resolution.
>
> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
>interfaces (i.e., init scripts in
801 - 900 of 1203 matches
Mail list logo
