On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:14:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
So you suggest to just ignore In each case the usual maintainer of the
relevant software or documentation makes decisions initially?
The TC has the authority to
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
package maintenance is not
something that I believe it's in the purview of the DPL to delegate.
I have to agree with this part. I think this is a power that
belongs to the developers.
I think that in such delegation the policy
Le dimanche, 9 février 2014, 13.02:21 Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:07:56PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 14.27:25 Steve Langasek a écrit :
(…), what I've seen suggests that systemd integration is currently
in a state that would
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
editors.
Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
decisions he can not make?
I also suggest you re-read Neil's text on the
On 07/02/14 16:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
That's plain wrong.
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Le dimanche, 9 février 2014, 12.33:02 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
On 07/02/14 16:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another
package, which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
That's plain wrong.
Fair enough, I was being
Hi,
Michael Gilbert:
The logind issue is legitimately blocking some progress, but that only
more clearly illustrates the fundamental problem. That logind issue
is the one that needs referral to the TC, but no one has done that
yet.
I don't think so. Gnome wants a logind implementation,
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
package follows from their status as package
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:15:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:27:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think any
maintainers should feel blocked on this by the lack of a formal vote; I
certainly don't think that the conclusion of the vote is the only blocker
for
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
package follows from their status as package maintainers; package
maintenance is not something that I believe
Hi Kurt,
Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 21.19:36 Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm guessing that under you're asking for the interpretation of
this in 6.1.1:
| In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
| documentation
On 02/07/2014 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)):
I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
and as reaction to that they are setting policy
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:01:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)):
I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
and as reaction to that
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 18.47:51 Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another
package, which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was
allowed by the Debian Policy of the time as well as by the Debian
archive. The maintainers of the
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
If you decide on the init system question first, you could just file a
bug against debian-policy and things could go their usual way.
Alternatively, the Policy maintainers could defer
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
Debian Policy of the time as well as by the Debian archive. The
maintainers of the Policy maintainers
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 02/07/2014 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)):
I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 11.04:12 Russ Allbery a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another
package, which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was
allowed by the Debian Policy of the time as well as by the
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
Debian Policy of the time as well as by
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 13:22 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:44:31PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
The Policy maintainers are the maintainers of the policy document, they
are
not maintainers of the relevant software in
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:05:47PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I keep thinking that bundling the default init decision with ruling on
what software dependencies are allowed in Debian packs two quite
different issues, allows (or features, one could say) tactical voting
and has, in
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:27:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think any
maintainers should feel blocked on this by the lack of a formal vote; I
certainly don't think that the conclusion of the vote is the only blocker
for switching the default init system in jessie today [..]
We
Hi,
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Quite frankly, given that all members of the TC have by this point weighed
in with their preference on the systemd vs. upstart question and these
preferences can be tallied by hand, I don't think there should be any doubt
as to how the vote on that
Sorry for yet-another-mail on that (long-lasting) bug, but I feel it's
important; so feel free to dismiss it if it isn't bringing to the
conversation.
Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 16.27:15 Anthony Towns a écrit :
Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:
4x UL DL UT DT (steve,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same [bad]
support) on maintainers and I feel it's too coercitive.
I don't interpret L as
Colin Watson writes (Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)):
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
alike
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:05:05PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 02/06/2014 11:50, Colin Watson wrote:
I don't interpret L as meaning that everything must support all init
systems, certainly not alike (indeed the text of that option is
explicit that it isn't necessarily alike). Rather,
Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 10.50:05 Colin Watson a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init
systems alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same
[bad] support) on maintainers
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dixit:
Now, I think there is currently a shared agreement in Debian that
all Debian packages (unless there's a good reason) should run on
sysvinit + Linux + amd64 , support outside that is best-effort
Eh, no! Debian is the universal OS, and it has quite a number
of
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Finally, I have hard time seeing under which powers could L be decided
by the tech-ctte: the policy team hasn't worked on that (§6.1.1), there
is no juridiction overlap that I could see (nor a disagreement about the
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)):
I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
and as reaction to that they are setting policy and that this will
be allowed under 6.1.1.
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
...
Now, I think there is currently a shared agreement in Debian that
all Debian packages (unless there's a good reason) should run on
sysvinit + Linux + amd64 , support outside that is best-effort
sysvinit
35 matches
Mail list logo
