Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

I vote about freedom of choice init system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546a5db2.9070...@lucylaika.ovh

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

m...@linux.it wrote: >> goli...@riseup.net wrote: >> I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I >> could > http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/ > Thank you for your contribute. Next! It might be your opinion that GNU/Linux is not about choice, but it is often said and the reas

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

goli...@riseup.net wrote: >I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/ Thank you for your contribute. Next! -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Greetings Debian developers! As a lowly 'Troglyte' who uses Debian as a DE not as server, this appeal to the 'cloud dwellers' of Debian-Stratos might be dismissed (with disdain and prejudice) as non-technical and 'emotional'. So be it. I have seen just about everything in my many years on th

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Seconded I completely back the idea to avoid a fork when ever possible. It's possible to maintain systemd and just let it to do the init stuff. Syslog and other daemons can be implemented independently, as for example in a classic Unix way. SuSE Linux Enterprise 12 has gone this way just now. Pleas

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

I agree with the proposal.

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)"): > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > The last (and only) formal amendment I accepted was my own, on Sunday > > the 19th. >

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve > freedom of choice of init systems)"): > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > That was at `

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve > freedom of choice of init systems)"): > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > That was at `

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)"): > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'. > > $ date -d 'Sun,

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice > of init systems)"): > > For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any > > further amendments.

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Hi, Ian Jackson writes: > Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice > of init systems)"): >> For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any >> further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period

Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)"): > For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any > further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion p

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On 23 October 2014 18:28, Vittorio Beggi (Gmail) wrote: > Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems. > > I definitely agree with the proposal. > > -- > Vittorio Beggi Me too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscr

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 08:38:36PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > On Thursday 23 October 2014 06:08 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > >> > The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software > >> > mainly for themselves,

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems . I definitely agree with the proposal. -- Vittorio Beggi PHX di Beggi Vittorio via Cirenaica, 6 35141 Padova PD Tel/Fax: 049 8756276 Mobile: 340 4871253 mailto: vit

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi, Svante, I fear your wonderfully terse phrasing may cause some people to react more negatively to what you said than you perhaps intended. Please forgive me for the boldness of suggsting alternate phrasings below, in the hope of clarifying things for everyone. Svante Signell: > It is well know

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Thursday 23 October 2014 06:08 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: >> > The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software >> > mainly for themselves, not the users, see for example the latest >> > development of Gnome. The o

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software > mainly for themselves, not the users, see for example the latest > development of Gnome. The only way to change this is by creating a large > enough user group tak

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

(unfortunately this mail will probably not result in the correct thread order. Don't know if the cause is my MUA evolution, or the web interface of the debian-vote list archives) > On 2014-10-17 09:35, Hörmetjan Yiltiz wrote: > Users still cannot vote? > No. > Hello, It is well known tha

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi Sergey, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose > myself what init system to use in my Debian setup. > This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in db.debian.org. Unfortunately, o

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi Neil, I realized that myself afterwards, please forgive my ignorance. Indeed, I'm not a registered Debian developer, so my vote cannot be accepted. Sergey On 22 October 2014 13:39, Neil McGovern wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: >> Second

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi debian-vote, The below poster redirected their response to my off-list mail back to the list. I explicitly mailed them off-list and with a reply-to of only myself set in order to avoid further list noise, and because they seemed like they were genuinely confused. I now see that they had an age

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Andy, Thank you for the email. << You can currently use Debian without systemd as long as no package you use depends on systemd. >> That "depends on systemd" hook is a primary objection for those of us who know better. Why should a non-init package depend on a particular init system? Only sy

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 16:05 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg0.html > and th

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

-- L.S.C.A. Francisco González Flores Redes y Comunicaciones CDE PRI Chihuahua

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi, On 16.10.2014 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote: > I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call > for seconds. [...] > ** Begin Proposal ** > > 0. Rationale > > Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its > default init system for the next release. The t

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"): > Ian Jackson wrote: > > The technical committee > > decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether > > other packages in Debian may depend on a pa

Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > (CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.) > > I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1) > `directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)). > This resets the minimum

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

I wholeheartedly support this proposal. I would go further in this proposal and state that no software should require a specific init system in ANY pid. Of course, like many others, I would prefer Debian's default init to be almost anything other than systemd. In fleeing systemd, I have left D

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Ian Jackson wrote: > The technical committee > decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether > other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system. What, then was #746715? > This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day > (Constitution 4.1.5

Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Alessio Treglia writes ("Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of > choice of init systems)"): >> Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto: >> > I hereby forma

Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Alessio Treglia writes ("Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)"): > Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto: > > I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1) > > `directly by proposer&

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:26:57AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Perhaps if you picked something other than runit you'd make your point more > effectively. Try using the case of someone who makes a tool that depends > from System V init running as process #1. It is hardly farfetched.

Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)"): >And, renumber the already-existing section 3 to be section 4: > >- 3. Notes and rubric >+ 3. Notes and rubric D

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On 17 October 2014 20:07, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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 yo

Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Hi, Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto: > I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1) > `directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)). > This resets the minimum discussion period (A.2(4)). > > For the avoidance of any do

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

I'm an end user who normally only reads this list. I'd like to add my perspective to this question though, for what it's worth. I'm on Debian testing, which is using systemd now. The only obvious difference to me is my laptop boots faster, which is nice, but ... 1) Binary logs? No. Even I've u

Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 (CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.) I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1) `directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)). This resets the minimum discussion period (A.2

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"): > 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 t

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Le dim. 19 oct. 2014 à 10:54, John James a écrit : Hi, Hi John, Not sure if I am able to vote on the issue; however, having been a Debian user for two years and a Linux user for nearly six years and having used a number of different distros in my time. I would like to vote in favour of

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Hi,  Not sure if I am able to vote on the issue; however, having been a Debian user for two years and a Linux user for nearly six years and having used a number of different distros in my time. I would like to vote in favour of keeping the traditional freedom of choice for init systems in line

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Simon Richter wrote: > The technical shortcomings of systemd are the smaller problem here. The > way I've been treated (stopping short of directly accusing me to > actively look for problems to complain about) whenever I was raising a > technical issue suggests to

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:40:49AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion. > > When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of this matter? I did have to c

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion. When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of this matter? Thanks, -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 >

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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. >>

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

e: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"): > Specifically: have you, or anyone else involved in this GR, asked the > GNOME team and the release team, whether a positive outcome of this GR > is going to disrupt their work (plans) or not? No, I have not. I am not awar

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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,

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 ? Aft

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 jus

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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, t

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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.

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 fro

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 cooin

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 `

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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.

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 see

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 i

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

- "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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

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 jessie + 1. Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled in a wa

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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 jessi

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

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

  1   2   3   >