Hi,
Josselin Mouette:
> Said otherwise, it is not possible to write a reliable service manager
> without integrating it to what happens in process #1.
>
s/is/was/. Today, you have prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER) to declare
yourself as a pseudo-init to the processes you fork off -- that patch is
fr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can
> centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them out
> of
> daemons into a service manager, without
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can
> centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them
> out of daemons into a service manager, without that service
> manager be
❦ 24 octobre 2014 16:19 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
:
> M. Wanderer was talking about process #1 in his message, M. Urlichs,
> which xe made synonymous with "the init system". Your changing that
> to be the systemd package, in order to then knock that argument down,
> is a strawman. You
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can
centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them out of
daemons into a service manager, without that service manager being
process #1.
I don’t know wh
The Wanderer:
This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
> "features" which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown,
> want to make use of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly
> all? - of the other init-system candidates don't either.) Such
> features shou
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> This is rich. Especially in the copyleft-oriented GNU/Linux land.
> (That being said, the FSF is rather good at vendor lock-in as well.)
I'm afraid I don't understand your statement.
Best,
Axel Wagner
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debia
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Axel Wagner wrote:
> systemd in debian is: That the systemd-opponents want to take the
> freedom from other people (amongst other the gnome upstream and debian
^^^
> maintainers) to use the software they like in the way they like, by
> preventing them from depending on s
Le mardi 21 octobre 2014 à 16:23 -0700, Cameron Norman a écrit :
> Also, I do not understand the log statement. Once again, Upstart can
> hook up a job's stdout/err to a file in /var/log/upstart/, but I am
> not exactly sure what was being said so maybe I missed the point.
I don’t understand how y
The Wanderer writes:
> At a glance at the sysvinit source, it doesn't look to me like
> /sbin/init itself does service management, in the "starting, stopping
> and monitoring services" form; at most, it seems to handle some subset
> of the "monitoring" part, in the form of noticing when something
On 10/21/2014 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2014-10-21 17:24 GMT+02:00 Robert Lemmen :
>
>> hi matthias,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:35:20PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>>> first place. Having ten processes responsible for bits&pieces of
>>> what systemd-as-PID1 does instead of
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 16:03 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The Wanderer wrote:
> > This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
> > "features"
> > which other software might, post-boot and pre-s
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:23:39PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> El mar, 21 de oct 2014 a las 7:03 , Josselin Mouette
> escribió:
> >The Wanderer wrote:
> >This is the problem. The init system should not be
> >providing "features"
> >which other software might, post-boot and pre-
El mar, 21 de oct 2014 a las 7:03 , Josselin Mouette
escribió:
The Wanderer wrote:
This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
"features"
which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown, want
to make use
of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most -
[Sorry for slow response, testing this on one's main machine requires
dropping too much state...] I should have CCed the bug earlier, doing this
now.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:37:04PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> > * the Utopia stack (restart, shutdown, suspend, hibernate, mounting USB
> > d
The Wanderer dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:10:41AM -0400]:
> >>> Can you give an example of people doing that in case of systemd?
> >>> Because so far, everything I heard was similar to GNOME, where:
> >>> • systemd provided a feature.
> >>
> >> This is the problem. The init system should not be p
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:14:35AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > These features cannot exist separately.
>
> If that is the case, then they should not be provided at all.
>
> That is a core disagreement here; the systemd upstream plainly rank
> those as features more valuable than either the pri
Hi,
The Wanderer writes:
> This is the problem. The init system should not be providing "features"
> which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown, want to make use
> of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly all? - of the other
> init-system candidates don't either.) Such featu
Hi,
The Wanderer:
> None of those things are done exclusively at boot / shutdown time, so
> they should not be done by the init system. If they are done at all,
> they should be done by something which can run and do them under any
> init system.
>
The whole point of an init system is to start pr
hi matthias,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:39:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Did you play around with systemd already?
not as much as would be ideal, but I have been running it on one
machine, adapted a few things that I run for starting, and trieid the
monitoring/restart. but really, my main
2014-10-21 17:24 GMT+02:00 Robert Lemmen :
> hi matthias,
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:35:20PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> [...]
>> first place. Having ten processes responsible for bits&pieces of what
>> systemd-as-PID1 does instead of one isn't a benefit -- not if all you gain
>> by that
hi matthias,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:35:20PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> [...]
> first place. Having ten processes responsible for bits&pieces of what
> systemd-as-PID1 does instead of one isn't a benefit -- not if all you gain
> by that is nine additional processes.
>
> "It's a big monol
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 16:03 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
> This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
> "features"
> which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown, want to make
> use
> of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and
On 10/21/2014 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Wanderer:
>
>>> Can you give an example of people doing that in case of systemd?
>>> Because so far, everything I heard was similar to GNOME, where:
>>> • systemd provided a feature.
>>
>> This is the problem. The init system shou
Hi,
Neil Williams:
> A relation of a log to a service is mere configuration - a conffile is
> all that is needed for that example.
>
No it's not. You need code which captures all of a daemon's output (and its
children -- stdout+stderr+syslog), separately from any other daemon, and
log it in a way
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Norbert, could you please stop your aggressive behaviour against other
> people on this list? Sadly, you are not very funny with these remarks.
Come on Ondřej, that was just sarcastic to me.
The CoC is a good thing, though such attitude t
On 10/21/2014 04:43 PM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 21/10/14 15:32, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> It did not work, yes. That's why, for example, fail2ban can be used by
>> local users to deny access to other users[1].
>
> With that said, if that fact *actually matters*, you probably have
> other, worse p
Ondřej, could you please stop your aggressive behaviour against other
people on this list? Sadly, you are not very helpful with these remarks.
Repeatedly.
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 16:13, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > not possible to split the system cgroups arbitrator from the process
> > which starts services and sessions in cgroups. It is not possible to
> > ensure the relation of a log to a service if y
On 21/10/14 15:32, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
It did not work, yes. That's why, for example, fail2ban can be used by
local users to deny access to other users[1].
With that said, if that fact *actually matters*, you probably have
other, worse problems.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-
Hi,
The Wanderer:
> > Can you give an example of people doing that in case of systemd?
> > Because so far, everything I heard was similar to GNOME, where:
> > • systemd provided a feature.
>
> This is the problem. The init system should not be providing "features"
> which other software might, po
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:03:10 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
> This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
> "features" which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown,
> want to make use of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly
> al
On 10/21/2014 04:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> not possible to split the system cgroups arbitrator from the process
>> which starts services and sessions in cgroups. It is not possible to
>> ensure the relation of a log to a service if you do not h
On 10/21/2014 at 10:13 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> not possible to split the system cgroups arbitrator from the
>> process which starts services and sessions in cgroups. It is not
>> possible to ensure the relation of a log to a service if you d
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> not possible to split the system cgroups arbitrator from the process
> which starts services and sessions in cgroups. It is not possible to
> ensure the relation of a log to a service if you do not have awareness
> of how the service was launched. Et c
On 10/21/2014 at 10:03 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
>> "features" which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown,
>> want to make use of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly
>> all? - of the
The Wanderer wrote:
This is the problem. The init system should not be providing "features"
which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown, want to make use
of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly all? - of the other
init-system candidates don't
On 10/20/2014 at 01:50 PM, Axel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>>
>>> "If you don't want to use my software on general principles, go
>>> away and write your own. Do not bother me."
>>>
>>> This principle is hardly specific to systemd.
>>
>> Yes, but other upstreams
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:35:05AM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>> * consider skipping jessie altogether in the hope jessie+1 will
>> provide alternatives or, at least has a systemd where development
>> speed went down significantly.
>
> Tha
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Glaser writes:
>> "If you don't want to use my software on general principles, go away and
>> write your own. Do not bother me."
>>
>> This principle is hardly specific to systemd.
>
> Yes, but other upstreams at least agree to not step on the
> toes of people who wish to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Christoph Biedl
wrote:
> * sit and watch the things happen they don't agree with at all, things
That's not true, literally ***it can't be true***
It is in clear view that the _majority_ agrees, and every single of us
*must* fall under one of the categories listed
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Debian installations I have at least three serious issues that prevent
> systemd based systems from booting or being usable¹.
Are you willing to file bug reports about these issues?
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
--
bye,
pabs
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Christoph Biedl:
> > - upstream shows little respect for people who object systemd
>
> Why should they?
Because not doing that is asocial.
> "If you don't want to use my software on general principles, go away and
> write your own. Do not bother m
Hi,
Christoph Biedl:
> - upstream shows little respect for people who object systemd
Why should they?
"If you don't want to use my software on general principles, go away and
write your own. Do not bother me."
This principle is hardly specific to systemd.
> I have at least three serious iss
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:35:05AM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> * consider skipping jessie altogether in the hope jessie+1 will
> provide alternatives or, at least has a systemd where development
> speed went down significantly.
That's backwards -- it's the future that's at risk, jessie is a fi
Matthias Urlichs wrote...
> We don't do a GR among our users. We do that among Debian
> members/maintainers/developers/take-your-pick.
>
> Of those, most …
> * are perfectly happy with the TC's decision
> * can live with it
> * are unhappy, but think that to continue discussing this is way worse
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 15/10/14 23:01, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>
>> shim doesn't appear to work, at least for me. To get basic functionality
>> like shutdown from GUI, suspend or mounting USB drives, I needed to
>> downgrade the whole Utopia stack to their last wor
[ answered on -user only ]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141016125024.gc17...@smurf.noris.de
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:29:11AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> lee:
> > I'm sure we could find quite a few supporters for having a GR amongst
> > the users (here).
>
> We don't do a GR among our users. We do that among Debian
> members/maintainers/developers/take-your-pick.
>
> Of t
On 15/10/14 23:01, Adam Borowski wrote:
shim doesn't appear to work, at least for me. To get basic functionality
like shutdown from GUI, suspend or mounting USB drives, I needed to
downgrade the whole Utopia stack to their last working versions.
Out of interest, what's the bug number?
--
To
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:49:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > > Only thing I don't understand is why so few votes for systemd-shim out
> > > of the group who has it installed.
> >
> > Maybe noatime? That’s probably popular on
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Only thing I don't understand is why so few votes for systemd-shim out
> > of the group who has it installed.
>
> Maybe noatime? That’s probably popular on desktops. “vote” does
> not really say much, anyway.
I doubt noatime ha
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joey Hess wrote:
> Only thing I don't understand is why so few votes for systemd-shim out
> of the group who has it installed.
Maybe noatime? That’s probably popular on desktops. “vote” does
not really say much, anyway.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Sometimes they [people] care too m
On 10/14/2014 at 04:15 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this
>> issue be a case in which significant concerns from/of the users
>> about an issue might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak l
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this issue be
> a case in which significant concerns from/of the users about an issue
> might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak loudly for Debian and its ways
> and for what it stands f
Hi,
The Wanderer writes:
> Unfortunately, not everyone - or even everyone who would be willing to
> provide such feedback, or even actively interested in doing so - is
> going to install that.
Luckily, popcon is opt-in anyway, so this has no effect whatsoever on
it's quality as a data source.
B
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think in future we should probably make a habit of posting something
> to d-d-a when there is a GR proposal.
If the proposer thinks posting to d-d-a is a good idea, then they should
just do it. Any DD can, after all.
They should ideally point out the is
On 10/13/2014 at 01:01 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to
>> remain on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should
>> also turn out
>
> Which, I should add, i
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:35AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think in future we should probably make a habit of posting something
> to d-d-a when there is a GR proposal.
Yep, liw made the same point on -project in response to a thread I started
there on this subject. I still feel we don't adeq
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)"):
> Le mardi, 14 octobre 2014, 01.13:48 Wookey a écrit :
> > I'm just pointing out that interested people, who are moderately
> > well-involved, really did miss that a GR was attempte
Le mardi, 14 octobre 2014, 01.13:48 Wookey a écrit :
> I'm just pointing out that interested people, who are moderately
> well-involved, really did miss that a GR was attempted.
For the record, I don't disagree; I'm just saying that the GR call was
on the right list and that I think that the proj
Joey Hess wrote:
> A small percentage of server users are avoiding swiching to systemd,
> although that group looks to still be shrinking somewhat.
Of course, not many people use unstable/testing for servers, so we don't
really know much from popcon yet about whether server admins will go for
syst
Philip Hands writes ("Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)"):
> I'm completely astonished that Ian is willing to suggest that four more
> people pledging support for it at this stage would be enough for him to
> attempt CPR on its putrid corpse.
You put me in an awk
+++ Didier 'OdyX' Raboud [2014-10-13 17:33 +0200]:
> I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet to
> be noticed by 6+ people". I mean: the proposition happened to be in the
> middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it
> belonged. The people who ca
Joey Hess writes:
> Yes we do: sysvinit-core systemd-sysv systemd-shim
>
> https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=sysvinit-core+systemd-sysv+systemd-shim&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1
[...]
> Only
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Right now it is the "defaults" effect, because Debian stable is included in
> the report. We don't have a "testing + unstable" report.
Yes we do: sysvinit-core systemd-sysv systemd-shim
https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=sysvinit-core+systemd-sys
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet to
>> be noticed by 6+ people". I mean: the proposition happened to be in the
>> middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it
>> belonged. The people w
Le lundi, 13 octobre 2014, 12.23:00 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet
> > to be noticed by 6+ people".
>
> Actually - I'd contest that, for four reasons:
>
> - as I've previously noted - the major impacts
At Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:23:16 -0400,
Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
> >> on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also t
Hi,
[ Please followup on -user@, there is no need to have this on two
lists. ]
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> http://popcon.debian.org/
>
> which sure seems to reinforce the popularity of sysvinit
>
> 18sysvinit 697126 583755 44903 6352
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >>In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
> >>on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also turn out
> >Which, I s
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also turn out
Which, I should add, is something we measure if the user installs
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
> on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also turn out
Which, I should add, is something we measure if the user installs
popularity-contest and opts-in to
2014-10-13 18:23 GMT+02:00 Miles Fidelman :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>
>> I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet to
>> be noticed by 6+ people". I mean: the proposition happened to be in the
>> middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it
>>
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet to
be noticed by 6+ people". I mean: the proposition happened to be in the
middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it
belonged. The people who cared about the whole "default ini
I really don't buy the argument that "the GR proposal was too quiet to
be noticed by 6+ people". I mean: the proposition happened to be in the
middle of the post-TC decision wave, on the mailing lists where it
belonged. The people who cared about the whole "default init for Debian"
question _we
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)"):
> In reading through the archives, I have to say that the GR proposal was
> both buried in all the broader discussion of systemd, rather long and
> convoluted reading, and not well publicized.
If four ot
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Miles Fidelman:
Judging by the last couple of months, the rest appears to number <6 people.
A lot more than that, by my count.
Then the question is why almost all of these "lot more" people did not
second the GR proposal.
Well... as a couple of people have now p
Hi,
Miles Fidelman:
> >Judging by the last couple of months, the rest appears to number <6 people.
>
> A lot more than that, by my count.
>
Then the question is why almost all of these "lot more" people did not
second the GR proposal.
> Those who are most impacted are sys admins of servers, and
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Neil Williams wrote:
> > (I did not have the chance to Second the GR proposal
> > because I was not even aware that there *was* one.)
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
>
> Same procedure as previous calls for GR: debian-vote mailing list. If
Yeah, surprise, I don’t
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:21:45 +0200
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> > Those who are most impacted are sys admins of servers, and upstream
> > developers
>
> I’m both, and I joined Debian to try to make an impact…
>
> > - the two communities most impacted,
Le Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:21:45PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> … but even then, am drowned by the masses.
No, you are drowning the masses under your emails, that is different.
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Those who are most impacted are sys admins of servers, and upstream developers
I’m both, and I joined Debian to try to make an impact…
> - the two communities most impacted, but that seem to have no say in the
> matter.
… but even then, am drowned by
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
lee:
I'm sure we could find quite a few supporters for having a GR amongst
the users (here).
We don't do a GR among our users. We do that among Debian
members/maintainers/developers/take-your-pick.
Which does kind of lead back to the question of what's the point o
Hi,
lee:
> I'm sure we could find quite a few supporters for having a GR amongst
> the users (here).
We don't do a GR among our users. We do that among Debian
members/maintainers/developers/take-your-pick.
Of those, most …
* are perfectly happy with the TC's decision
* can live with it
* are unh
least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7).
This has not happened.
> It would be interesting to see what the devs/maintainers would vote for,
> and it might give everyone quite a bit a of re-assurance and
> piece-of-mind.
Given that there have not been 6 members asking for this vo
task. Red Hat aren't
> doing
> that. Fedora aren't doing that. Ubuntu aren't doing that.
Why doesn't Debian just do a GR on this issue?
It would be interesting to see what the devs/maintainers would vote for,
and it might give everyone quite a bit a of re-assurance
87 matches
Mail list logo
