On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by people
> who do not support that option will usually result in a cluttered
> ballot, with various options that are almost but not quite the same
> thing, and options that are irrelevant noise a
On Jul 22 2016, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Lionel Elie Mamane [2016-07-22 12:14 +0200]:
>> Since Debian is an international project, with many (I expect a
>> majority but am too lazy to check) of non-native English speakers,
>> maybe taking a more unwieldy, but more clear route, would b
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>> The systemd folks have made quite clear, again and again, that they
>> will not listen to people who want an alternative. They will force
>> systemd on every computer they can get away with.
>
> What's your intention
Bas Wijnen writes:
> Yes, and everyone, including Ian, prefers that. But as he wrote, people
> are attacking him for almost a year now.
That doesn't neccessarily mean it's true do. Personally, I have the
impression that it's very much the other way around. As usual, Russ put
it in better words t
Bas Wijnen writes:
> The systemd folks have made quite clear, again and again, that they
> will not listen to people who want an alternative. They will force
> systemd on every computer they can get away with.
What's your intention behind this statement? It is too vague to be
refuted, and you ar
Tristan Van Berkom writes:
> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 16:41 -0500, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes:
>> > In the battle between those upstreams and Debian contributors who want
>> > everyone to use systemd, and those developers and users who don't want
&
Ian Jackson writes:
> In the battle between those upstreams and Debian contributors who want
> everyone to use systemd, and those developers and users who don't want
> to use systemd, _someone_ is going to experience duress.
I don't think that there are developers and users who want everyone to
u
Ian Jackson writes:
d> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
>> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
>> > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
>> > uselessd | systemd (but does not wor
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
> =
> A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj])
> (if you are confused with “one” here, it’s basically fine to read it as
> “sysvinit” instead. See
Ian Jackson writes:
> Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init
> systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>> I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
>> up with (leaving alone the f
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>&
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
>> Ian Jackson writes:
>>> David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
>>> init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>>>> OK, so packaging
Ian Jackson writes:
> David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
> init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>> OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
>> provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your
>> worries
Ian Jackson writes:
> If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a
> positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary
> line for my proposal:
>
> Packages may not require a specific init system
Why not s/a/one/ as in your amendment?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and
>>> specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'. To represent that as
>>> `a
Luca Falavigna writes:
> 2. Specific init systems as PID 1
>
> Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed
> as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper
> operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or
> by adding dependencies
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2014-02-28, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> 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:
>
> Hi
>
> I'm not fully sure about the implications if we vote this in.
>
Andreas Barth writes:
> * Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
>> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
>> >
Ian Jackson writes:
>> From the point of view of the bug reporter, the message the DD has
>> sent (whether intended or not) is "I'm not even going to dignify
>> this with a response. *click* " It's not /only/ this rudeness
>> that's the problem, though; the bug reporter has now been handed a
>> p
19 matches
Mail list logo
