-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://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg0.html
and the substantive t
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds.
Your proposal has been received and is signed correctly.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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
Il giorno gio, 16/10/2014 alle 16.05 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
> ** Begin Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> 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 "c
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
> issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
> this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on
> the jessie release.
Speaki
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +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
>
> ** Begin Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> 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 in Debian may depend on a par
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +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.htm
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +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.htm
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: 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
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Seconded.
>
I'm getting a bad signature from you, can you try again, perhaps with a
clearsigned mail?
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds.
Hi,
This reached the required number of seconds at Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:42:55
UTC, and thus the relevent minimum discussion period of two weeks has
sta
Ian Jackson writes:
> I think that if necessary we might have to delay the release. That
> would be a matter for the release team. I would be very unhappy if we
> ditched the ability of people to choose a different init system simply
> to maintain our release schedule.
Hurray, what a great idea
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 19:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
> init systems"):
> > I've sympathy for the motives behind this GR, but discovering that those
> > teams might have their Jessie plans disrupted---on a very short
> >
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I think that if necessary we might have to delay the release. That
> > would be a matter for the release team. I would be very unhappy if we
> > ditched the ability of people to choose a different init sy
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 thought that two weeks before
> the freeze (which has had a
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Hurray, what a great idea to delay everything *now*.
>
>> And all because some people believe in conspiracy theories about Red
>> Hat...
>
> This response is uncalled for. The /existence/ of conspiracy n
On 16 October 2014 21:41, 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?
That is great! And is exactly what the GR is supposed make sure keeps
happening. Debian wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I second the proposal 'preserve freedom of choice of init systems'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUQBJfXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ5RkUzRTlDMzY2OTFBNjlGRjUzQ0M2ODQy
QzdD
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 work with any init
> system running at PID 1" to tho
Aigars Mahinovs writes:
> 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 work with any init
> system running at PID 1" to those requirements.
No, it does not
Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (2014-10-16 20:50:31)
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>>> Hurray, what a great idea to delay everything *now*.
>>
>>> And all because some people believe in conspiracy theories about Red
>>> Hat...
>>
>> This r
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:24:52 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
> > issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
> > this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on
> > the jessie releas
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 weeks before
> the freeze (which has had a fixed date for nearly a year now) was
gregor herrmann (2014-10-16):
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:24:52 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > > As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
> > > issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
> > > this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true
On 16 October 2014 22:13, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Aigars Mahinovs writes:
>> 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 work with any init
>> system
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:03:49PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> See, there is a clear difference:
[snip]
> * if your software only works if started by this one init system -
> that is a problem.
I don't quite understand this - what if you depend on something that's
only provided / supported o
On 16 October 2014 23:07, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> * if your software only works if started by this one init system -
>> that is a problem.
>
> I don't quite understand this - what if you depend on something that's
> only provided / supported on one init system? Take for example the case
> of lo
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:20:13PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> According to my reading of the proposal - either logind gets an RC bug
> for not being able to work with other init systems
To be clear, this would be a bug against src:systemd about it not
working with non-systemd. Do we expect th
I second Ian Jackson's proposal 'preserve freedom of choice of init
systems'
craig
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 16 October 2014 23:26, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:20:13PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>> According to my reading of the proposal - either logind gets an RC bug
>> for not being able to work with other init systems
>
> To be clear, this would be a bug against src:syst
* Ian Jackson [141016 17:05]:
> -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://lists.debian.org/debian-vot
Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
vote to some other place?
Kurt
--
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/20141016210738.ga21...
On 10/16/2014 11:07 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
> vote to some other place?
Do you really think anyone will feel that their contribution was not
relevant for the vote?
Anyway, is someone willing to propose an option that would postpone
❦ 16 octobre 2014 16:26 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte :
> Here, we will likely do invasive forks of major upstream software
> (GNOME) to get around a local requirement; do we expect the GNOME team
> to do this?
By turning such bugs into RC bugs, the proponents are exactly advocating
this position: th
On 2014-10-16 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
>> 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 Mar
On 17 October 2014 08:25, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> By turning such bugs into RC bugs, the proponents are exactly advocating
> this position: they put the burden on an under-staffed team.
>
If people feel strongly that init system XYZ should be supported, then
presumably somebody will do the work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second Ian's "Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems".
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg1.html
Regards,
Dimitri.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUQFF9AAoJEIh7YGGLPBaucx0P/AvSlSG
Le Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> -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:
> ht
On 17 October 2014 01:36, Brian May wrote:
> 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.
[snip]
> On another topic, I think we need a GR stating that all software should work
> 100%
40 matches
Mail list logo
