On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> That leads to the question how long it takes until these bugs are being
> noticed.
>
> I am definitely not going to test init scripts properly when the systemd
> units are exactly doing what they are supposed to. The number of people
> not
On 10/31/19 8:07 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> I read it the same way - and also a logical consequece: if these
> patches lead to bugs, the maintainer should not be forced to fix the
> mess. I for myself would just remove buggy things that nobody care in a
> certain amount of time.
That leads to the
Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 00:48, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>
> On 10/31/19 9:56 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > This isn't limited to just shipping an init script, have a look at the
> > tomcat9 9.0.13-1 changelog entry which dropped the sysvinit script.
> > Continuing to support an init script also
❦ 31 octobre 2019 21:49 +01, Thomas Goirand :
> The idea has always been that it would be on best-effort from people who
> volunteer, without forcing anyone to do any sysv-rc support if they
> don't feel like it. What you describe goes along this line.
I have raised my concern about this a few
On Nov 01, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Instead of using well understood parameters to adduser, which we've been
> using for decades, and understand well the parameters, systemd provides
Personally I never remember the exact semantics of many adduser/addgroup
parameters and I have to double check
On 10/31/19 9:56 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> This isn't limited to just shipping an init script, have a look at the
> tomcat9 9.0.13-1 changelog entry which dropped the sysvinit script.
> Continuing to support an init script also means to retain on all the
> packaging boilerplate which got
Thomas Goirand schrieb:
> "I’d very happily maintain the init script."
>
> I haven't read all the bug entry, but if someone is claiming that
> accepting such contribution is mandatory, then that's very much right,
> at least that the consensus we're in right now, indeed.
This isn't limited to
On 10/31/19 8:07 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> I read it the same way - and also a logical consequece: if these
> patches lead to bugs, the maintainer should not be forced to fix the
> mess. I for myself would just remove buggy things that nobody care in a
> certain amount of time.
I'd be very much fine
On 10/31/19 7:36 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Thomas Goirand schrieb:
>> My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init script
>> isn't mandatory.
>
> With policy not updated, people claim it's mandatory, see e.g.
> #925473 on Tomcat.
Well, the policy is wrong, and should be
Simon Richter dijo [Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:46:21PM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:38:32PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > If we have such vote again, I'll continue on this direction: I'd prefer
> > if we didn't have to vote.
>
> >From a Policy perspective, packages are
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:40:58 +0100
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > of clear project guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent
> > it from bitrotting.
What is wrong with bitrotting if nobody cares about - in case nobody
cares about it's the logical
Thomas Goirand schrieb:
> My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init script
> isn't mandatory.
With policy not updated, people claim it's mandatory, see e.g.
#925473 on Tomcat.
The discussed GRs would provide clarification on what the project
at large actually wants (and
Russ,
On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] we do not have clear
> project consensus that sysvinit support is mandatory in new packages, so
> the support is starting to bitrot, and given the lack of clear project
> guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent it from bitrotting.
Sam,
thanks for the bits mail. Very interesting as usual! Just a minor
nitpick...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:16:21PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * I spent some money.
No, you didn't, Debian did, as you correctly described below. You
approved that spending.
--
cheers,
Holger
(I'm not
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:38:32PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If we have such vote again, I'll continue on this direction: I'd prefer
> if we didn't have to vote.
>From a Policy perspective, packages are supposed to integrate into the
system by providing init scripts, and Policy has a
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Having said that,
Wouter> Sam: I notice that you've not sent a draft of your GR
Wouter> proposal to the -vote mailing list yet. It has been my
Wouter> experience over the years that that is not generally a good
Wouter> idea.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:19:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We've now had several years of essentially declining to make a decision
> and trying to see if the project can muddle through, and while I feel
> somewhat vindicated by the fact that this didn't immediately fall apart
> and has sort
Thomas Goirand writes:
> The last time we've had a GR on init systems, the general response was
> that we don't want to vote, and we preferred the TC to decide.
I don't think the core questions here are technical questions. I think
they're more fundamental questions of project direction and
On 10/29/19 6:16 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Init System Policy
> ==
>
> last Bits mail, I talked about how I was considering whether we needed a
> GR on Init System Policy.
The last time we've had a GR on init systems, the general response was
that we don't want to vote, and we
19 matches
Mail list logo
