On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:06:45AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated)
> > /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years.
>
> Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the "rc"
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2013-10-25 17:04, Bastien beudart wrote:
> It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known
> ubuntu developers.
Correct. And five other members.
> Isn't that biased?
Probably.
But even if the two people vote in one direction the
On 10/29/2013 06:53 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi Svante,
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote:
>> Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html
>
> I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more
Hi Svante,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote:
> Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html
I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we might get OpenRC
working on our ports, but some still
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
> this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd
> be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at
> least others can tr
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:01:05PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Could this problem be explained. As long as they are in separate
> directories and called explicitly does that matter?
Please see the nodejs vs node thread(s).
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte
: :' : Proud Debian Dev
> >
> > IANA ftp-master, but here's my quick review:
> >
> > Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated)
> > /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years.
>
> Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the "rc"
> package is why you saw this immediately! :)
>
On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Thomas Goirand , 2013-10-25, 23:45:
>> OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as
>> this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month.
>> It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so
>>
Stefano Zacchiroli debian.org> writes:
> *technical* decision is stupid. We really need to stop thinking that
> every single member of the Debian project, just because he/she is a DD,
> has a clue on every single technical matter that go on in the project.
This means that you just don’t vote if
* Thomas Goirand , 2013-10-25, 23:45:
OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this
is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice
if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least
others can try it.
IANA ftp-master,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros
> of cons such as on LWN.net comments or any distro mailing list as many
> are tired of systemd discussion and this wide ranging and much of the
> stolen/borrowed
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:02:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> # systemd units on my laptop that are generated internally by systemd
> # when it reads a sysvinit script (or "LSB init script" as it
> # calls them)
> % systemctl list-units | grep LSB | wc -l
That's only currently loaded units, i.e
On 25/10/13 16:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Fully supporting an init system means, among other things, writing or
> generating native configuration files for that init system so that we can
> take full (or at least fuller) advantage of its capabilities. We're
> currently not doing that for anything o
On Oct 26, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If neither Upstart or Systemd works for these non-Linux ports, then
> there's OpenRC. Which is why I worked on it (and I did this, mainly
> because of "ethical and philosophical reasons" as you put it). It
> wouldn't hurt to have more help on it...
Having all pa
On 10/26/2013 10:37 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> - Against systemd speaks that it's uncertain on whether there will be a
> solution in the end for the non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think
> Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons.
> Admittedly I have no idea how the
> systemd doing more is quite relevant for this decision as far as I
> understand the discussion: unlike upstart, systemd is not just an init
> replacement, but offers additional services like journald or logind.
I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros
of cons such a
> I recommend one more option, nicknamed "rotten tomatoes",
> that basically says that this GR should never have been proposed.
And even more so not listened to for a few reasons.
Little has changed since the last discussion that I feel came to a
reasonable current standing with an overview pos
> Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
> systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
> valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
> charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to
> have public t
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013, at 16:37, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
> > *technical* decision is stupid.
> Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about ups
Hi,
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
>> *technical* decision is stupid.
> Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs.
> systemd is *only
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:37:55PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> [...] non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for
> ethical and philosophical reasons.
Uh-oh.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for
> *technical* decision is stupid.
Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs.
systemd is *only* a technical question?
- Apparently both are
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:09:45PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
> systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
> valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
> charitable interpretati
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On one hand, the belief that every DD is technically omniscient is the
> reason why we still have so many pointlessly heated debates on this
> mailing list. We would have way less of those if we let only people who
> have a clue debate s
Zack wrote:
>
>Note that the *possibility* of taking technical decisions by GRs is
>important, as it provides a balance of powers within the project, but we
>should always do everything in our power to avoid doing that.
>
>The decisions about the init system (both "which are the supported
>ones?" a
* Uoti Urpala [2013-10-25 18:27]:
> Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against
> systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from
> valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively
> charitable interpretation for a member of a body
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Let’s GR it.
No. I think I've already argued in the past against this idea on -devel,
possibly even in reply to you, Thorsten. As I can't find my post back
then, let me reiterate.
GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] deci
Funny thing, the people who are undermining the Debian processes most loudly
are not even Debian Developers and thus they are not bound by them.
I am tired of this recurring flamewar, please stop it and let the tech-ctte do
their job. This is not a democracy any more, but the loudiestcracy.
O.
Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> Possible alternative choices for the GR would be:
>
> - switch to systemd, do not permit any other init system
>
> - switch to upstart, do not permit any other init system
>
> - switch to systemd/upstart for $subset_of_arch
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:15AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
> but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
> of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
> will keep supporti
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue,
> but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict
> of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they
> will keep supporting Upst
Colin Watson wrote:
> I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing
> subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my
> vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring
> relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as w
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:42:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
> >init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
> >half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
> I disagree: neither upstart nor syste
2013/10/25 Colin Watson :
> [...]
> One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my
> employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself
> from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that
> would be generally understood as ethical behav
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:31:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bastien beudart writes:
> > It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> > developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
> > upstart, I know that the decision should be based around t
Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +]:
> > Let's tech committee it :)
>
> I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
> or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
> one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream
> clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything
> important on it?
Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompatabilities.
Cheers,
Paul
--
Thomas Goirand dixit:
>> and at turning
>> the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible
>> upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort,
>Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have
>to fork the project (or maintain a
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>
>> Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
>> are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
>> Hurd & kFreeBSD).
>
> Not necessarily. We could also decide that whicheve
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 18:09, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bastien beudart writes:
> >
> > > It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> > > developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
> > > upstart, I know that the decision
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>>> Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
>>> *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
>>
>> Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, s
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
>We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one
>init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many
>half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain.
I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are “one size fits all”,
nor do they intend to
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bastien beudart writes:
>
> > It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> > developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
> > upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
> > facts, but that is not in
Thomas Goirand writes:
> Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
> are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
> Hurd & kFreeBSD).
Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick
will need to be ported to Hurd a
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
>> *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
>
> Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
> so my favourite GR outcome would just say t
Bastien beudart writes:
> It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against
> upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical
> facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against t
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>> Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
>> *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
> Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart…
> so my favourite GR outcome
> Let's tech committee it :)
>
It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
developers.
Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know
that the decision
should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest
to vote against thei
2013/10/25 Thorsten Glaser :
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
>>Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
>
> This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
> FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so
> that
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
> >Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
>
> This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
> FINALLY decide what package maintaine
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:04:47PM +0200, Bastien beudart wrote:
>
> Let's tech committee it :)
>
> It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu
> developers.
> Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that
> the decision
> should be ba
Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to
FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so
that we can move on).
Also, I’d not like to
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
> > > Let’s GR it.
> >
> > Let's tech committee it :)
>
> I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
> or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to suppo
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
> > > Let’s GR it.
> >
> > Let's tech committee it :)
>
> I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
> or something like that, but not a decision whether we wan
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:03:38 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer scientia.net> writes:
>
> > Let the war begin... ;)
>
> I’m looking for someone to help me formulate a GR (since I know
> I’m not good in formulating things that don’t offend anyone, and
> in English) th
Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
> > Let’s GR it.
>
> Let's tech committee it :)
I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:19, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Let’s GR it.
>
> Let's tech committee it :)
I was just going to say the same. I don't think we need a full GR,
let's just shove it to tech-ctte, so they can make an informed decision.
We have the Tech CTTE for this type of decisions aft
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer scientia.net> writes:
> Let’s GR it.
Let's tech committee it :)
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte
: :' : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C
58 matches
Mail list logo
