Hi Craig,
Craig Sanders writes:
> dishonest "debating" like this (i.e. petty ego-wankers like you
> point-scoring by malicious twisting of words and selective misquoting),
> is why i haven't bothered for years. i should have remembered that i
> have better things to do with my time.
If you just
Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
The implication of this proposed GR seems to be that those tools
> would be unfit for inclusion within debian unless someone erects all
> the additional scaffolding that runit provides (process supervision,
> pipelined logfiles with autorotation and log msgs just sent to
>
Thanks a lot for your analysis, Lucas. I find it _very_ helpful!
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2014-10-17 22:23:14)
> Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
> =
> A2.1: packages MUST work with all alternative init systems as PID 1.
> (tha
Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (2014-10-17 22:34:31)
> Simon Richter writes:
>> On 17.10.2014 16:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
removed from jessie.
>>
I also agree with this proposal. Currently several packages cannot be
upgraded without including libsystemd-* something, and I have
experienced several installation issues with packages from Testing and
the reccommended alternatative package systemd-shim.
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Re-Propos
On Friday 17 October 2014 23:03:37 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[snip]
> I would like to see the above clause modified like this:
>
> "There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if the package
> is still basically functional."
>
> Rationale: I don't think that "the maintainer believes the
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> I'm really glad you think there is no work to be done between now and
> release.
try being at least minimally honest in your argument.
i didn't say that no work at all was necessary for the release. i was
responding to the claim that this GR isn't necessary because d
On 17 October 2014 23:19, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17.10.2014 22:13, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
>> I note that it was *not* possible to switch init systems in Wheezy in a
>> supported way (in particular sysvinit is essential and various things
>> get very unhappy if it gets uninstalled), b
Hi,
On 17.10.2014 22:13, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I note that it was *not* possible to switch init systems in Wheezy in a
> supported way (in particular sysvinit is essential and various things
> get very unhappy if it gets uninstalled), but you seem to treat Jessie
> as more problematic even th
Hi,
On 2014-10-17 17:49, Gonzalo Velasco C. wrote:
Well, thanks to the market wishes of Red Hat, that pushed their
systemd stuff into us, we are now limited not only in init systems
inside the Debian ecosystem, but in a lot of things that
not-init-system-only daemon is eating.
This is an extre
On 2014-10-17 22:04, Craig Sanders wrote:
Holger Levsen wrote:
and for what exactly? Gnome right now is installable with systemd-shim
+
sysvinit, why can't this GR wait until after release when the dust has
settled?
because right now when NO work needs to be done is the perfect time to
get
the problem with this proposal is that if your strip out all the
feelgood propaganda fluff misusing the word "freedom", what it's
actually saying is that package maintainers don't have to even attempt
to maintain compatibility with non-systemd init systems, and making
it acceptable to perform steal
Holger Levsen wrote:
> and for what exactly? Gnome right now is installable with systemd-shim +
> sysvinit, why can't this GR wait until after release when the dust has
> settled?
because right now when NO work needs to be done is the perfect time to
get this clarified. if we wait until there
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
> should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
> not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to
> win
Hi Ian,
Ian Jackson writes:
> 2. Loose coupling of init systems
>
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
> pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
Could you change the formulation here?
Several people seem to understand this as "must work with *all* init
s
Simon Richter writes:
> On 17.10.2014 16:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
>>> mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
>>> removed from jessie.
>
>> The implication here appears to be troubling for any
Le vendredi, 17 octobre 2014, 19.50:22 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> We need the GR to ensure situation stays good. No big deal.
That's the fundamental crux of the disagreement I think: A GR will _not_
automagically generate upstream attention for non-systemd support.
Point.
If your "good" situ
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 13:02 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if both proposals shouldn't be rewritten using RFC 2119 to
> make them clearer.
I did not really do that, but instead rewrote both proposals as a set of
Q&A that make it easier to understand the differences and the possibl
Hi,
On 17.10.2014 16:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
>> mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
>> removed from jessie.
> The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
> to
Hi,
Simon Richter writes:
> On 17.10.2014 11:52, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and
>>> by something
>>> as controversal as the systemd stuff.
>
>> A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
>> controversial.
>
> No
Hi,
On 17.10.2014 11:52, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and
>> by something
>> as controversal as the systemd stuff.
> A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
> controversial.
No, the majority disregarding the n
Hello Gonzalo,
Thank you for your email and your concerns and opinions.
Let me re-assure you that our users and the free software are our
highest priorities.
However, to answer your question in the subject line, no, you cannot
vote in this resolution as only Debian Members are allowed to vote.
If
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:30:46PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Upstream Developers considering a specific Free Software (including,
> > but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1)
> > fundamental to deliver the best Software releases, are fully entitled
> > to requir
Hi,
> Upstream Developers considering a specific Free Software (including,
> but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1)
> fundamental to deliver the best Software releases, are fully entitled
> to require, link, or depend on that Software, or portions of it.
Note that
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 07:14:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > I think those 2 conflict, and that if you want to use the TC
> > powers it would fall under 4.1.4.
>
> Kurt, we had that conversation in March.
On 17/10/14 at 19:42 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
> >
> > Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been prop
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
> However it implicitly allowed changing the details later without a GR by
> just setting "inital policy".
>
> Maybe something similar could be done here?
I think that if th
Hi,
Joey Hess writes:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired
>> from the "Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init
>> support" option of the TC resolution on init system coupling[1], which
>> was originally written by
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
> should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
> not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to
> win.
>
> I am therefore bringing forward an alternati
Luca Falavigna writes:
> I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
> Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
> currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
I'd second this proposal.
--
|8]
pgpd8kf_TBaYa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> I think those 2 conflict, and that if you want to use the TC
> powers it would fall under 4.1.4.
Kurt, we had that conversation in March. Can you please go back and
read the thread then ? After that extended
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
>
> For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
> policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
[...]
> 3. Notes and rubric
>
> This resolution is a Position
Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (2014-10-17 18:38:35)
> On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> And the GR text is quite careful: it doesn't say that failure to work
>> with one init system is worse than any other bug. It is only
>> _requiring a specific init system to be pid 1_ which is forbi
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 13:15 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> The TC stated, and passed a resolution to the effect of Debian
> continuing to support multiple init systems. If, as you say, "Gnome
> right now is installable with systemd-shim + sysvinit," those sound
> like release critical bugs in
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
>
> Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
> Project Leader, and thus does not r
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
> Seconded.
This seems to be signed with a key that is not in the keyring.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archi
Holger Levsen mailto:holger%40layer-acht.org>>
wrote:
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2014, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
> how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
> opportunity there has been, that anyone t
On 10/17/2014 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> aigar...@debian.org wrote:
>
>> To be frank, in cases like logind I would expect the logind binary
>> package to be split out and its source patched in such a way to allow
>> it to work without systemd running (however badly) and moving the main
>> sys
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> If you agree that this is only a matter of general technical policy, and
> that the current state of jessie matches what you would like to see
> after your proposal, couldn't we just agree to withdraw both pr
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
> > > release at all.
> >
> > But, the resolution of this GR and the start of the freeze cooincid
Dear Debian friends,
I am not a (registered) part of the team, so I can't vote for the proposal
in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg1.html
But, I'm an user with ~15 computers at the university and home, running 80%
of them some Debian derivative (SolydXK, MiniNo, Ubuntu, Xubuntu
On 10/17/2014 03:09 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:00 +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>> We have all kinds of policies about what is fine in a package and what
>> is a Release Critical bug. That is a big part of what makes a
>> distribution. This simply adds - "must be able to
On 17/10/14 at 17:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 3. As far as we are aware there are currently (17th of October) no
> bugs in jessie which would be declared RC by this GR.
>
> Given the late passage of this resolution, we expect that any
> intractable bugs which are RC by virtue only
On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
> init systems"):
>> nevertheless, runit behaves differently when it is pid 1 than when it is
>> used in a subordinate role to another initsystem. If i'm upstream and
>> i'm b
Ian Jackson writes ("Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> ** Begin Proposal **
I am considering making an amendment to this along the lines below.
Please let me know ASAP what you think. Feel free to use private
email. Especially, I would like to hear from:
- People w
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
> > release at all.
>
> But, the resolution of this GR and the start of the freeze cooincide,
> +-1 week. And after the free
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems"):
> nevertheless, runit behaves differently when it is pid 1 than when it is
> used in a subordinate role to another initsystem. If i'm upstream and
> i'm building mechanisms that integrate with runit *as i
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> > > would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
> > > make it diff
Le vendredi, 17 octobre 2014, 10.00:59 Ean Schuessler a écrit :
> - "Holger Levsen" wrote:
> > If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not
> > GRs telling other people to do so.
>
> Very well stated. Perhaps a sensible response to this GR is for all of
> the maintaine
On 10/17/2014 11:26 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
> init systems"):
>> The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
>> to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
>> The
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems"):
> The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
> to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
Yes, indeed.
> The implication of this proposed GR seems to be that those t
On 10/17/2014 03:44 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
> should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
> not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to
> win.
>
> I am theref
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> > would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
> > make it difficult to disentangle things in
On 17/10/14 at 16:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lucas Nussbaum:
> > For example, Ian's "software may not require a specific init system to be
> > pid
> > 1" could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive
>
> Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar
Hi,
Brian May:
> If people feel strongly that init system XYZ should be supported, then
> presumably somebody will do the work to make sure it is supported, and it
> does work. As I believe is the case now.
Correct. But this proposal would make *something* RC buggy until *somebody*
writes some so
- "Holger Levsen" wrote:
> If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not
> GRs telling other people to do so.
Very well stated. Perhaps a sensible response to this GR is for all of
the maintainers who truly disagree with it to state their intent of
putting their packag
On 10/17/2014 10:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
> mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
> removed from jessie.
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific f
On 17 October 2014 10:14, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Dears,
>
> I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
> Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
> currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
>
> Of course, improvements to the text are much more than
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
> make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie + 1.
Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled
in a wa
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Note (and this is not splitting hairs) that "serious bug" is not a direct
> analogue for "release-critical bug".
This GR is not amending Debian policy, it's setting a technical
requirement at a more fundamental level, which has never been used to set
technical requirements
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> While I appreciate that this is a very important issue for a lot of
> people, I am deeply concerned by the point in time it is revived.
> _*We have less than 3 weeks till the Jessie freeze starts!*_
I agree
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems"):
> For these reasons, and no matter what went wrong in the past with
> previous attempts at this GR, I think you should have at the very least
> included an "applies only to jessie + 1" provision in your pro
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum:
> For example, Ian's "software may not require a specific init system to be pid
> 1" could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive
Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar failure modes.
If we'd go that way, not only would we need to define (
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
> proposed by Matthew Vernon in March:
> https
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussb
On 17 October 2014 13:44, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
>
> Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
> Project Leader, and thus does not require seconds, b
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:23:30PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2014 05:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> > The world isn't just GNOME.
> > The issue is bigger than just GNOME. Think of e.g. UPower. There is
> > various other software which is affected by this. Requiring peo
On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > >For the jessie release, all software that currentl
On Friday 17 October 2014 06:27 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 17 October 2014 15:53, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> > Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
>> > for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
> Please do not conflate two very different i
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:23:30PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
> for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
Ritesh,
from various mails of yours I got the impression that you are arguing
for changing (ba
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > >For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> > >under sysvinit should conti
On 17 October 2014 15:53, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
> for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
Please do not conflate two very different issues. The default choice
has been decided and is not in question at
On Friday 17 October 2014 05:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > The world isn't just GNOME.
> The issue is bigger than just GNOME. Think of e.g. UPower. There is
> various other software which is affected by this. Requiring people to do
> your bidding is against the Debian social contract. While this
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
Project Leader, and thus does not require seconds, but will record those
seconding anyway.
Neil
--
signa
On 2014-10-17 12:00, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 17 October 2014 13:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently unlikely to wonder
why
the *censored* Ian even bothered, but whatever), _then_ these lists
are the
right places to discuss the implications. Until the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:23:15PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Because of pressure of other upstreams going forward everyone adopted it
> and this makes it non controversial - i dont get it?!?
The adaption in openSUSE and Mageia was not due to this. The discussion
is public. If you claim above
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:19:38PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2014 12:11 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > And for what exactly? Gnome right now is installable with systemd-shim +
> > sysvinit, why can't this GR wait until after release when the dust has
> > settled?
>
> T
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:16:49AM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Actually that is a *very* similar issue. Apps should be
> window-manager-neutral as much as they should be init-system-neutral.
> Imagine if suddenly all Gnome apps stopped working unless you were
> running Metacity. It should not b
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:00:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
> > > controversial.
> > I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about?
> Probably because you appear to be in the middle
On 17/10/14 at 12:00 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > […]
> >For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> >under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
> >technical
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:13:56AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm very unhappy about that too. The right time to raise this was in
> March when Matthew proposed it and I seconded it.
>
> But that doesn't mean that it isn't still important now.
Sure. But the drawbacks of having it now are much m
Hi Luca,
On 17.10.2014 11:14, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
> Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
> currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
I am also willing to second such a statement as yours once you f
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:00:03PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> Also, what does "currently" ("already" in my text) mean? In stable or
> testing?
Okay, I see <20141017110531.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info> now.
--
Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> […]
>For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
>under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
>technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve
>
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 08:38:25AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
> > under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week.
>
> I think this is a terrible idea. I agree that there are entrenched peopl
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> >under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
> >technically feasible w
On 17/10/14 at 09:44 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired
> from the "Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init
> support" option of the TC resolution on init system coupling[1], which
> was originally written by Ru
On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
> > controversial.
> I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about?
Probably because you appear to be in the middle of it...
> > Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributio
On 17 October 2014 13:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently unlikely to wonder why
> the *censored* Ian even bothered, but whatever), _then_ these lists are the
> right places to discuss the implications. Until then, let's keep it here.
>From the discussi
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
> Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
> currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
I'd second this.
Thanks!
Philipp Kern
signature.as
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
> ---
> The Debian project asks its members to be more considerate when proposing
> General Resolutions, and in particular to take care that the proposed GR has
> actual chances to be accepted, considering
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx:
> Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
> vote to some other place?
>
Please don't.
Personally, I do not want -devel to get swamped with yet another discussion
about this.
Or -release, for that matter.
If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:52:26AM +, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> f...@zz.de wrote:
>
> >for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and
> >by something
> >as controversal as the systemd stuff.
> A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
> controversial
Adam D. Barratt writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
> how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
> opportunity there has been, that anyone thought that two weeks before
Adam D. Barratt writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> That doesn't really disagree with my point. Ian could have asked weeks -
> in fact _months_ - ago.
I did, in March.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
f...@zz.de wrote:
>for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and by
>something
>as controversal as the systemd stuff.
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributions I
would
Seconded.
> - begin proposal ->8
> Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its default
> init system for the next release. The technical committee decided not to
> decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether other packages
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
>under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
>technically feasible way to do so.
I believe "currently" needs to be clarified
On 2014-10-17 9:45, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2014 11:58 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
opportunity there has been, that anyone thought that two
2014-10-17 11:17 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> Note that this paragraph *directly* goes against the *definition* of
> a software distribution (take upstream software and integrate it with
> the whole, occasionally going against upstream’s will) and towards a
> unified userland.exe…
Upstream could
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
