Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes:
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:26:57AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Perhaps if you picked something other than runit you'd make your point more
effectively. Try using the case of someone who makes a tool that depends
from System V init running as process #1. It is hardly farfetched.
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
David Weinehall writes (Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
init systems is desirable but not mandatory):
OK, so packaging uselessd (thus
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
The wording in my resolution comes from the TC
Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the
Alessio Treglia writes (Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of
choice of init systems)):
Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
`directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept
Nikolaus Rath writes (Re: GR option text on ballots):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a
positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary
line for my proposal:
Packages may not require a
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Alessio Treglia writes (Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of
choice of init systems)):
Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
I hereby formally propose the
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:19:03)
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To
me this looks like a legitimate fork.
Or are you saying that at least one is really meant to mean
Hi,
On Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the
outcome of the
Le dimanche, 19 octobre 2014, 23.29:21 Charles Plessy a écrit :
--
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless
of the outcome of
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Here is the text:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes:
I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a trick that I came
up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
yet another guy started the project).
Indeed, I think uselessd is a very interesting project. I hope it
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org (2014-10-18):
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
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
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (2014-10-19):
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Here is the text:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive
Nikolaus Rath writes (Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init
systems is desirable but not mandatory):
I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a trick that I came
up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
yet another guy started the
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:29:10)
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
David Weinehall writes (Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
init systems is desirable but not
Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.
Regarding the subject of
+1 keep `sysvint-core` in Debian *at a reliable level*, is a wise thing to
do. For at least, 2018~2020.
On 19 October 2014 18:40, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
All received and valid.
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Luca Falavigna wrote:
The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the record, the TC expects
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed
amendment is considered harmful, let me know).
Received (well, found in the middle of a mail thread, thanks for
changing the subject though :P) and
Ian Jackson wrote:
The technical committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
What, then was #746715?
This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
(Constitution 4.1.5),
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
includes merging reasonable contributions,
Hi.
I'd support a proposal that focused on reaffirming the decisions that
have already been taken, and it sort of sounds like you're doing that.
However, I think your proposal goes significantly further than I'd like.
So, I'd rank your proposal significantly below Lucas's proposal.
however, if
Hi,
Joey Hess:
Luca Falavigna wrote:
The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the
Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Joey Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
Joey of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
Joey currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
Joey to the TC. It could implicitly or
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
Sam Hartman wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Joey Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
Joey of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
Joey currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
Joey to the
On 20 October 2014 21:14, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Luca Falavigna wrote:
The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:46:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the
proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will
seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are
happy with.
Please see
Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Joey Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when
proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be
Hi Kurt,
On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC and put them under
4.1.4.
I do not follow you on this argumentation. The
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
Hi Kurt,
On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC and put
Arno == Arno Töll a...@debian.org writes:
Arno Hi Kurt,
Arno On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Either it's a position statement, or we're making position
statement (4.1.5), or using the TC's power (4.1.4).
In #727708 it says that a position statement will replace
this TC resolution.
In #746715 there is no such text.
So the question is going to be if this
On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view
that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement
for their packages. Finally I encourage everyone to focus on the
connotation in Luca's amendment. It allows
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:03:49PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
that's going on.
Hear, hear.
My dayjob is doing PMO[1][2] style work tracking and modeling
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: GR option text on ballots):
I'd like to propose:
I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be
positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as
they are not
I wholeheartedly support this proposal.
I would go further in this proposal and state that no software should require a
specific init system in ANY pid.
Of course, like many others, I would prefer Debian's default init to be almost
anything other than systemd.
In fleeing systemd, I have left
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
(CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.)
I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
`directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)).
This resets the minimum
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Nikolaus Rath writes (Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init
systems is desirable but not mandatory):
I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a trick that I came
up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it
Hi,
Joey Hess:
Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
that's going on.
Well, vote them below FD then.
Except for the nice two-paragraph we don't need no stinkin' GR amendment
that's going
48 matches
Mail list logo
