Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd Facilities"):
> If we're going to expect there to be a transition period, I would prefer
> the time be defined, rather than left for case-by-case argument. If folks
> would prefer that we have zero delay (as soon a
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd Facilities"):
> Of course if the (re)implementation(s) of the (new) interface are
> complete before the time is up, there would be no reason to continue
> to delay, and blessing immediate use would be uncontroversial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
(Kurt, you can skip to "FAO KURT".)
Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> versions.
...
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
>
Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd
Facilities"):
> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems about
> right based on what's happened in the last week. The constitution
> allows the DPL to change the discussion period by up to a week
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> The update should be available on the website now.
Hi, thanks. I looked at the version here
https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
and it is missing some of the paragraph breaks compared to the
actu
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
>> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems
>> about right based on what's happened in the last week. The
>> consti
On 11/17/19 9:00 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joshua Hudson writes:
>
>> The debate on systemd often turns into systemd vs. sysvinit because
>> sysvinit is the working alternative right now. Unfortunately, this is a
>> poor way to frame the debate. The reality is sytemd unit files are a
>> really go
Sam Hartman writes:
> To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started
> November 16.
> So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring on
> November 30.
Your acceptance of my amendment reset the clock, at least by my reading of
the constitution. That happened on
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd Facilities"):
> (I also think this is a bug in the constitution; it means that a rejected
> but seconded amendment can go on the ballot immediately before the vote
> with no time for further discussion of that amend
> On 16 Nov 2019, at 18:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We wish to continu
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
>> To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period
>> started November 16. So, we're talking about a minimum
>> discussion period expiring on November 30.
Russ> Your acceptance of my amendment reset t
Sam Hartman writes:
> I did?
> I thought I told you I would accept the amendment.
> It's my intent today or tomorrow to accept the amendment and to update
> the discussion period to continue to expire on November 30.
Oh, I see. Your message to debian-vote specifically was:
| I am in fact going
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd Facilities"):
> It's my intent today or tomorrow to accept the amendment and to update
> the discussion period to continue to expire on November 30.
I think a decision to shorten the minimum discussion period from t
Ian Jackson writes:
> Sam Hartman writes:
>> It's my intent today or tomorrow to accept the amendment and to update
>> the discussion period to continue to expire on November 30.
> I think a decision to shorten the minimum discussion period from the
> constitutional default would be highly inapp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:41 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> (Kurt, you can skip to "FAO KURT".)
>
> Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> > versions.
> ...
> >
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of
> > time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis.
> If we're going to expect there to be a transition period, I would prefer
> the time be defined,
Holger Levsen writes:
> What I missed that this delay (of 6/12 month) is a delay for *-policy*
> about describing/defining such a feature. I thought it ment to prohibit
> people from using such new features.
It's a delay from the point at which Policy standardizes using systemd
services instead
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:37:59PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ah! Now I see that this is ment differently than it was proposed.
s#it#how I understood it#
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger@(debi
Kurt, I'd like to accept Russ's amendment to choice hartmans1.
Attached please find a complete replacement for all three choices,
although only hartmans1 has changed.
Also, please find a diff in case that's easier for you.
Using powers under constitution 5.1 (8), I vary the minimum discussion
pe
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>> Sam Hartman writes:
>>> It's my intent today or tomorrow to accept the amendment and to
>>> update the discussion period to continue to expire on November
>>> 30.
Russ> Sam said that he'd be willing to delay if needed if an
Russ> a
Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
previous versions of it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
with pid1 != systemd, unless i
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:11 PM Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be
23 matches
Mail list logo
