On 17 October 2014 01:36, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au 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
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
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
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
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
Hi,
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 08:38 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week. I'd be
surprised if anyone is likely to change their view on the desirability
of choice of init system now - as others
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes:
I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week. I'd be
surprised if anyone is likely to change their view on the desirability
of choice of init system now - as others have pointed
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could win with
less than 25% of the votes if the other
On Thursday 16 October 2014 11:56 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Anyone around for the alternative choice of just one init system? In the
same spirit of just one libc? (Yeah, choice of course does not include
the C library or the kernel if it's just anti-evil-Red-Hat...)
I guess we have one libc
On 17/10/14 at 10:28 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
many options, leading to scattered votes. One party
On Thursday 16 October 2014 11:58 PM, 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
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- begin proposal -8
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
On Friday 17 October 2014 12:11 AM, 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?
The world isn't just GNOME.
This is a GR based on rumors, which is very sad.
On Friday 17 October 2014 12:30 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not GRs
telling other people to do so.
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA384
Ian Jackson dixit:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
(d-d-a would have been nice, but this time I found it in time.)
** Begin Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to
On Friday 17 October 2014 12:43 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Aigars Mahinovs aigar...@debian.org 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
Users still cannot vote? Or if we can, how?
Best
，
He who is worthy to receive his days and nights is worthy to receive* all
else* from you (and me).
The Prophet, Gibran Kahlil
2014-10-17 10:42 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org:
Note that our voting method is clone-proof, so one proposal cannot steal
votes from one another. That's one of the great things about Condorcet:
you can have similar proposals on the same ballot without causing the
votes to be split.
Hi,
On Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired
from the Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init
support option of the TC resolution on init system coupling[1], which
was originally written by
On 2014-10-17 09:35, Hörmetjan Yiltiz wrote:
Users still cannot vote?
No.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 08:38:25AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week.
I think this is a terrible idea. I agree that there are entrenched people on
two sides of the argument, but
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
Fine, conspiracy theories might be a bit too much. Let's call it
strategic alliances that are a very real threat to Debian that are
mediated by shared employment and might also involve corporate
alliances.
I don't care if
Dears,
I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
Of course, improvements to the text are much more than welcome!
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
Proposal:
Luca Falavigna dktrkranz at debian.org writes:
2. Freedom of upstream discrection
Upstream Developers considering a specific Free Software (including,
but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1)
fundamental to deliver the best Software releases, are fully entitled
Hi Luca,
On Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014, Luca Falavigna wrote:
I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
yes, I would. This proposal looks great! Many thanks!
aigar...@debian.org wrote:
To be frank, in cases like logind I would expect the logind binary
package to be split out and its source patched in such a way to allow
it to work without systemd running (however badly) and moving the main
systemd package from Dependencies to Recommended.
It is quite
Hi,
On 17/10/14 12:44 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore
Hi Ansgar,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk 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
Seconded.
On Oct 17, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote:
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore
Hi,
On Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Note that this paragraph *directly* goes against the *definition* of
a software distribution (take upstream software and integrate it with
the whole, occasionally going against upstream’s will) and towards a
unified userland.exe…
wait,
2014-10-17 11:17 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org:
Note that this paragraph *directly* goes against the *definition* of
a software distribution (take upstream software and integrate it with
the whole, occasionally going against upstream’s will) and towards a
unified userland.exe…
On 2014-10-17 9:45, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2014 11:58 PM, 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
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
technically feasible way to do so.
I believe currently needs to be clarified -
Seconded.
- begin proposal -8
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
f...@zz.de wrote:
for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and by
something
as controversal as the systemd stuff.
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributions I
would
Adam D. Barratt writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
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
Adam D. Barratt writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
That doesn't really disagree with my point. Ian could have asked weeks -
in fact _months_ - ago.
I did, in March.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:52:26AM +, Marco d'Itri wrote:
f...@zz.de wrote:
for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and
by something
as controversal as the systemd stuff.
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
I
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx:
Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
vote to some other place?
Please don't.
Personally, I do not want -devel to get swamped with yet another discussion
about this.
Or -release, for that matter.
If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be more considerate when proposing
General Resolutions, and in particular to take care that the proposed GR has
actual chances to be accepted, considering
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
I'd second this.
Thanks!
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
On 17 October 2014 13:27, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently unlikely to wonder why
the *censored* Ian even bothered, but whatever), _then_ these lists are the
right places to discuss the implications. Until then, let's keep it here.
On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about?
Probably because you appear to be in the middle of it...
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
technically feasible way to
Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 08:38:25AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week.
I think this is a terrible idea. I agree that there are
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[…]
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:00:03PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
Also, what does currently (already in my text) mean? In stable or
testing?
Okay, I see 20141017110531.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info now.
--
Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:13:56AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm very unhappy about that too. The right time to raise this was in
March when Matthew proposed it and I seconded it.
But that doesn't mean that it isn't still important now.
Sure. But the drawbacks of having it now are much more
On 17/10/14 at 12:00 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[…]
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
technically
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:16:49AM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Actually that is a *very* similar issue. Apps should be
window-manager-neutral as much as they should be init-system-neutral.
Imagine if suddenly all Gnome apps stopped working unless you were
running Metacity. It should not be
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:23:15PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
Because of pressure of other upstreams going forward everyone adopted it
and this makes it non controversial - i dont get it?!?
The adaption in openSUSE and Mageia was not due to this. The discussion
is public. If you claim above
On 2014-10-17 12:00, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 17 October 2014 13:27, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently unlikely to wonder
why
the *censored* Ian even bothered, but whatever), _then_ these lists
are the
right places to discuss the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
Project Leader, and thus does not require seconds, but will record those
seconding anyway.
Neil
--
On Friday 17 October 2014 05:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
The world isn't just GNOME.
The issue is bigger than just GNOME. Think of e.g. UPower. There is
various other software which is affected by this. Requiring people to do
your bidding is against the Debian social contract. While this is
On 17 October 2014 15:53, Ritesh Raj Sarraf r...@researchut.com wrote:
Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
Please do not conflate two very different issues. The default choice
has been decided and is
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:23:30PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
Ritesh,
from various mails of yours I got the impression that you are arguing
for changing
On Friday 17 October 2014 06:27 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 17 October 2014 15:53, Ritesh Raj Sarraf r...@researchut.com wrote:
Why is SysV Init so unacceptable ? It is a neutral init that serves well
for all our sub-projects. Let that be the default choice.
Please do not conflate two very
On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
For the jessie release, all software that currently
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:23:30PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2014 05:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
The world isn't just GNOME.
The issue is bigger than just GNOME. Think of e.g. UPower. There is
various other software which is affected by this. Requiring people to
On 17 October 2014 13:44, Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
Project Leader, and thus does not require
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
-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:
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum:
For example, Ian's software may not require a specific init system to be pid
1 could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive
Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar failure modes.
If we'd go that way, not only would we need to define (and
Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
For these reasons, and no matter what went wrong in the past with
previous attempts at this GR, I think you should have at the very least
included an applies only to jessie + 1 provision in your proposal.
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
While I appreciate that this is a very important issue for a lot of
people, I am deeply concerned by the point in time it is revived.
_*We have less than 3 weeks till the Jessie freeze starts!*_
I agree
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Note (and this is not splitting hairs) that serious bug is not a direct
analogue for release-critical bug.
This GR is not amending Debian policy, it's setting a technical
requirement at a more fundamental level, which has never been used to set
technical requirements in
Ian Jackson wrote:
The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie + 1.
Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled
in a way
On 17 October 2014 10:14, Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org wrote:
Dears,
I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
Of course, improvements to the text are
On 10/17/2014 10:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
removed from jessie.
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific
- Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not
GRs telling other people to do so.
Very well stated. Perhaps a sensible response to this GR is for all of
the maintainers who truly disagree with it to state their intent of
Hi,
Brian May:
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. As I believe is the case now.
Correct. But this proposal would make *something* RC buggy until *somebody*
writes some
On 17/10/14 at 16:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum:
For example, Ian's software may not require a specific init system to be
pid
1 could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive
Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar failure
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie +
On 10/17/2014 03:44 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
Yes, indeed.
The implication of this proposed GR seems to be that those tools
On 10/17/2014 11:26 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
Yes, indeed.
The implication
Le vendredi, 17 octobre 2014, 10.00:59 Ean Schuessler a écrit :
- Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not
GRs telling other people to do so.
Very well stated. Perhaps a sensible response to this GR is for all of
Ian Jackson wrote:
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
make it difficult to
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
nevertheless, runit behaves differently when it is pid 1 than when it is
used in a subordinate role to another initsystem. If i'm upstream and
i'm building mechanisms that integrate with runit *as it
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
release at all.
But, the resolution of this GR and the start of the freeze cooincide,
+-1 week. And after the freeze, the
Ian Jackson writes (Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems):
** Begin Proposal **
I am considering making an amendment to this along the lines below.
Please let me know ASAP what you think. Feel free to use private
email. Especially, I would like to hear from:
- People who
On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
nevertheless, runit behaves differently when it is pid 1 than when it is
used in a subordinate role to another initsystem. If i'm upstream and
i'm building
On 17/10/14 at 17:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
3. As far as we are aware there are currently (17th of October) no
bugs in jessie which would be declared RC by this GR.
Given the late passage of this resolution, we expect that any
intractable bugs which are RC by virtue only of
On 10/17/2014 03:09 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
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
Dear Debian friends,
I am not a (registered) part of the team, so I can't vote for the proposal
in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg1.html
But, I'm an user with ~15 computers at the university and home, running 80%
of them some Debian derivative (SolydXK, MiniNo, Ubuntu,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
release at all.
But, the resolution of this GR and the start of the freeze cooincide,
+-1 week.
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
If you agree that this is only a matter of general technical policy, and
that the current state of jessie matches what you would like to see
after your proposal, couldn't we just agree to withdraw both
On 10/17/2014 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
aigar...@debian.org wrote:
To be frank, in cases like logind I would expect the logind binary
package to be split out and its source patched in such a way to allow
it to work without systemd running (however badly) and moving the main
systemd
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org mailto:holger%40layer-acht.org
wrote:
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
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
Seconded.
This seems to be signed with a key that is not in the keyring.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
Project Leader, and thus does not
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 13:15 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
The TC stated, and passed a resolution to the effect of Debian
continuing to support multiple init systems. If, as you say, Gnome
right now is installable with systemd-shim + sysvinit, those sound
like release critical bugs in Gnome
Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (2014-10-17 18:38:35)
On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
And the GR text is quite careful: it doesn't say that failure to work
with one init system is worse than any other bug. It is only
_requiring a specific init system to be pid 1_ which is forbidden.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
[...]
3. Notes and rubric
This resolution is a Position
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I think those 2 conflict, and that if you want to use the TC
powers it would fall under 4.1.4.
Kurt, we had that conversation in March. Can you please go back and
read the thread then ? After that extended
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes:
I'd like to draft an alternative proposal to the GR.
Would anybody consider it a nice addition to the proposals we
currently have, and eventually second it if I asked for it?
I'd second this proposal.
--
|8]
pgpd8kf_TBaYa.pgp
Description: PGP
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative
Hi,
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired
from the Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init
support option of the TC resolution on init system coupling[1], which
was originally
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
init systems is desirable but not mandatory):
However it implicitly allowed changing the details later without a GR by
just setting inital policy.
Maybe something similar could be done here?
I think that if the TC
On 17/10/14 at 19:42 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
