-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Brian Gupta writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
[ quoting Dmitry ]
> 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 it was designed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2019/11/21 13:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Those aren't the grammar fixes I would be thinking of. I expect
> we will sort those things out :-).
>
> In the meantime, I also second this proposal.
Notwithstanding some grammar/language issues already me
Hi,
On 2019/11/21 02:11, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> with pid1 != system
Hi,
Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> -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 it was designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I would note that as the proposer of an option with enough seconds, I
> can also call for a vote when the minimum discussion period has
> elapsed. You can increase the minimum discussion period, but only to
> 3 weeks. IMO it would
Hi.
By this point we have a group of people who have consistently seconded
options that promote init diversity.
That is, we have a group of people who have gotten behind specific
options.
I'd like to ask especially those people whether choice hartmans1 should
be removed from the ballot. Within
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 02:41:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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/vo
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:51AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "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
> >>
Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
change meaning.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be of value
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote:
>
> Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat).
That email wasn't signed.
Kurt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:54:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:02:03PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat).
>
> That email wasn't signed.
Oops, update broke my mail client's GPG i
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd Facilities"):
> That whole part could really use some fixing. The more you read
> it, the more you think it says something else.
Yes. I'm sorry about that. I have been thinking about these
matters. If the result
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> It's in: g...@salsa.debian.org:webmaster-team/webwml.git
Thanks. Haven't looked at that yet but...
> Jean-Pierre Giraud applied this patch:
...
> -3. Ideal
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
Kurt> current interpretation is different. The page shows the
Kurt> discussion perriod starting at the 19th, which is when Ian's
Kurt> proposal got enough sponsors.
My unders
Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.
Thanks.
I think your option looks finalised to me. Do you want more time for
peop
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>
> Kurt> I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
> Kurt> current interpretation is different. The page shows the
> Kurt> discussion perriod starting at the 1
Sam Hartman writes ("Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> By this point we have a group of people who have consistently seconded
> options that promote init diversity.
> That is, we have a group of people who have gotten behind specific
> options.
>
> I'd like to ask especially those people wh
Hi Sam,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:44:02AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to ask especially those people whether choice hartmans1 should
> be removed from the ballot. Within limits, I think more options is
> better, so my general preference would be to keep the option. However
> especiall
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> nothing
> but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> changes.)
I was unable to verify your signature.
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> I think the title "Affirm Init Diversity" for hartmans1 is
Ian> rather misleading. hartmans1 seems to legitimise uncontrolled
Ian> adoption of non-daemon-startup systemd features; in this sense
Ian> it is weaker even than my compromise prop
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:08:08PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.
>
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
appropriate.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> Would you like to propose a title you believe is more accurate?
It is difficult for me to do that without being tendentious and
possibly offensive, since I don't like the proposal. What comes to my
mind is something like
Ineffec
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
>> Would you like to propose a title you believe is more accurate?
Ian> It is difficult for me to do that without being tendentious and
Ian> possibly offensive, since I don't l
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> I think two key differences between this choice and Dmitry's option are
> that:
>
> A) Init diversity issues are valid for an NMU but are never serious
>
> B) Dmitry's option puts specific obligations on maintainers to write
> init
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> I think the most important difference between your proposal and
Ian> Dmitry's is that your proposal, as I say, (and I think unlike
Ian> Dmitry's):
Ian> legitimise[s] uncontrolled adoption of non-daemon-startup
Ian> systemd features
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
>
> Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
> appropriate.
We
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> Choice hartmans1 permits the use of non-startup systemd features.
> Under this choice, that's fine so long as the package continues to work
> with non-systemd systems.
>From hartmans1:
Similarly, packages may freely use other sys
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> > > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
> >
> > Dmitry titled
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > I've
>> currently put the title to "Packages should support >
>> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
>>
>> Dmitr
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:45:21AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > I've
> >> currently put the title to "Packages should s
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> >
> > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> > nothing
> > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> > changes.)
>
> I
On 11/15/19 1:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Choice hartmans3: Focus on systemd for Init System and Other Facilities
>
> If this option wins I will significantly reduce my involvement in
> Debian. I think there are probably other contributors for whom this
> is the case. I imagine that there ar
On 11/15/19 3:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The problem with even your option B is that there is no effective
> route for non-systemd systems to "catch up" as you put it.
For some systemd Features there is no sane route to implement them for a
non-systemd system. Especially all the security featu
On 11/19/19 9:00 PM, Thomas Goirand 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.
please let's not find a way to delay the next release forever.
--
Bernd ZeimetzDebian
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 15:08 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice hartmans1: Affirm Init Diversity
[...]
> Init scripts are the lowest common denominator across all init
> systems.
I think naming options "Init diversity" isn't really expressive: if
current options "A" and "E" are called "Affirm Init
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 11/15/19 3:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The problem with even your option B is that there is no effective route
>> for non-systemd systems to "catch up" as you put it.
> For some systemd Features there is no sane route to implement them for a
> non-systemd system. Espe
Ansgar writes:
> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 15:08 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Unless the project or relevant parties have agreed otherwise, systemd
>> facilities, where they exist and are stable and supported by the
>> systemd maintainers, should be preferred over Debian-specific ways of
>> solving t
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > >
> > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> > > nothing
> > > but grammar/
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:33 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please consider the above version, and a
Tl;DR: I think this option is strictly better than the current
hartmans1. If you disagree please let me know. Especially if you want
to see the current hartmans1 on the ballot let me know.
I'd like to replace hartmans1 with this option.
I've attempted to revise choice hartmans1 along the lines
Hi,
Will there be a NOTA (none of the above) option on the ballot, or should
one propose it formally? Not being satisfied by any of the proposed
option may not mean one wants FD (further discussion) about it.
Regards
David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> "David" == David Prévot writes:
David> Hi, Will there be a NOTA (none of the above) option on the
David> ballot, or should one propose it formally? Not being
David> satisfied by any of the proposed option may not mean one
David> wants FD (further discussion) about it.
There
Hi,
Dmitry Bogatov proposed the following amendment:
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
> continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
> pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively
> with systemd and no supp
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
[…]
> Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around NMUs
which are prevalent in Debian for at least
On 21/11/19 at 13:58 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> It is a important bug (although not a serious one) when
> packages should work without systemd but they do not. Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
I think that it would be better to leave details of the BTS out of th
[2019-11-21 13:58] Ian Jackson
> Sam Hartman writes ("Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> > By this point we have a group of people who have consistently seconded
> > options that promote init diversity.
> > That is, we have a group of people who have gotten behind specific
> > options.
> >
[2019-11-21 13:47] Ian Jackson
> Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> > versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> > change meaning.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I think your option looks
[2019-11-21 13:58] Sam Hartman
> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
> [...]
> Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
As was already pointed, this is useless. Developers already can NMU any
bug.
> modification of Policy to adopt systemd facil
51 matches
Mail list logo
