By emailing each of the above email mailing lists, it's not hard to
guess who you are.
It is sad.
It is in your interests (for sanity, to stop your tsunami of loss of
respect, etc) to simply stop.
Take a holiday.
Come back in a time (weeks, months) that provides for you to return to
communicati
Ian Jackson writes:
> What my TC text, as adopted in Matthew's proposal, does is to answer
> the question: what happens if the work is not done ?
When you assume the work is not done then there will be packages
which do not support all init systems and depend (directly or
indirectly) on certain of
Once again, you rant multiple lists whilst hiding who you are.
I am Zenaan Harkness. I have some (not all) strongly held views.
As an aside, I shall use systemd and have tried a few times now, but
have a technical issue or two with my setup when using systemd, which
I need to find time to solve f
So because systemd people won, now after 13 years I have to leave
and find another distro.
This is BS.
The systemd people do this is every single distro they take over.
It is their way or the highway.
I absolutely hate you systemd people.
--- jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
From: Jerry Stuckle
Neil,
On 03/03/14 14:11, Neil McGovern wrote:
> #kgb-devel - not in the #debian-* namespace
> #pet-devel - not in the #debian-* namespace
These two are projects created and maintained by Debian people, and PET
in particular is a Debian-specific tool. We welcome our @debian-chanop
overlords :)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:39:40AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> > > resolutions:
The following changes to the debian-maintainers keyring have just been
activated:
federico.cera...@gmail.com
Removed key: ECA5F5232FE1F8E3B1303ACB5E326303C98B5D5D
Added key: 7CA7DDFB333921408C6F2B966F31BC44F5177DAA
giuliop...@gmail.com
Full name: Giulio Paci
Added key: 00FC3F400
On 3 March 2014 20:01, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Done. The page is user editable, provided that you're logged in to the
> wiki.
>
Thanks. I'm sorry, I was confused: I think the real reason I didn't edit
the page was because at the time I didn't know whether it or the other
material I had read w
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:37:53PM +, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 18:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > As keyring maintainers, we no longer consider 1024D keys to be
> > trustable. We are not yet mass-removing them, because we don't want to
> > hamper the project's work, but we definitivel
On 3 March 2014 18:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> As keyring maintainers, we no longer consider 1024D keys to be
> trustable. We are not yet mass-removing them, because we don't want to
> hamper the project's work, but we definitively will start being more
> aggressively deprecating their use. 1024D
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> [ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
> Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
> are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views
Jonathan Dowland dijo [Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:40:11AM +]:
> > Which, I think, is the status quo (except in cases where meetbot is used,
> > but then logs *are* available and good use of meetbot makes them
> > readable)
>
> I believe there are Debian sub-communities (and communities of other
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:15:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > Since, in my opinion, this question is all about how the project wants to
> > govern itself and how we want to handle assigning responsibility for
Hi,
On Montag, 3. März 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> It's a false dichtonomy, we could say that GNOME doesn't work on those
> platforms. That'd be sad, but it wouldn't make those platforms
> unusable, nor would it make GNOME generally unusable.
>
> It wouldn't be the first or the last time we d
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:25:28PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Each channel that has the group @debian-ops in it's access list receives
> a "/mode +b *!*@*.tor-irc.oftc.net". Those who are registered can ask
> nickserv to provide them with a unique cloak tied to their account, with
> "/msg ni
]] Ian Jackson
> It answers this question: Suppose the work is not done. Ultimately
> then we would have to drop either (a) GNOME or (b) non-systemd init
> systems, and non-Linux kernels. What choice should we make ?
It's a false dichtonomy, we could say that GNOME doesn't work on those
platfo
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Since, in my opinion, this question is all about how the project wants to
> govern itself and how we want to handle assigning responsibility for work
I don't think this is the right way to look at it. We are a v
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> I believe the point of contention is that Ian seems to imply that due to
> the way that the wrote the GR clause, *any* GR related to init would
> automatically nullify the TC's decision about the default init sys
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> > resolutions:
> >
> > 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupl
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
> > The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
> > > 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
> >
Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Sorry, Ian. I overreated.
Apology accepted. This whole business is quite difficult for
everyone and I too haven't managed to always keep my temper :-/.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-pro
Hi,
Steve Langasek writes:
> Given the ambiguity about whether this GR vacates the earlier TC decision, I
> think it would be best to simply include in your GR text a statement that
>
> The Debian project reaffirms the decision of the TC to make systemd the
> default init system for jessie.
Hi Christian,
[ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of
our mailing lists, this is true. Perhaps it is appropriate to use the
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:07:17PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Consequently, any GR about init-related issues would now need to
> explicity state that it upholds the CTTE's decision for the default
> init system. Lacking that, passing of the GR would, as a *side-effect*
> nullify the CT decision
24 matches
Mail list logo
