On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
This a GR proposal is a position statement about issues of the day
(as it says in the Notes and rubric.) It's on the subject of init
systems. Therefore it is covered by this wording.
But it also says:
1. Exercise of the TC's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Matthew Vernon writes (Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I wish to propose
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
This a GR proposal is a position statement about issues of the day
(as it says in the Notes and rubric.) It's on the subject of init
systems
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:45:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Matthew Vernon writes (Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
This a GR proposal is a position statement about issues of the day
(as it says
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Putting the notes and rubric section first might make this clearer
for you to see, but it would make the whole GR text much less clear to
read
He has a right to call a GR.You are trying your hardest to make sure systemd is theonly choice for all linux systems, all major linux distros,and if we don't like it we can "go use MacOSX or BSD" or"roll your own distro".The fact is that SysV works NOW. The scripts work and are stable and are
He has a right to call a GR.
You are trying your hardest to make sure systemd is the
only choice for all linux systems, all major linux distros,
and if we don't like it we can go use MacOSX or BSD or
roll your own distro.
The fact is that SysV works NOW. The scripts work and
are stable and are
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm very wary about passing resolutions which require work from future
persons unidentified. Presumeably it would need a person who is a) keen
on the desktop system in question and also b) keen on a particular init
system
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
There is also this decision of the CTTE:
The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
about whether software may require specific init systems.
Which doesn't have this GR rider text
On 2 Mar 2014, at 13:36, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm very wary about passing resolutions which require work from future
persons unidentified. Presumeably it would need a person who is a) keen
on the desktop system
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:51:07PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
My message was, in the words of Constitution 4.2.5, an
announcement on a publicly-readable electronic mailing list
designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s)
(I assume that listmaster have designated debian-vote for
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution to avoid invoking that
clause and keep the current decision (because that
Hi,
Stuart Prescott stu...@debian.org writes:
Your rationale does not explain how the normal policy process has failed to
deliver the outcomes required by the project. I think the project should
Sorry about that; I rather thought that the TC failing to rule on the
issue was failing to
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
having a decision about the default.
I think given my current
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution to
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
If you're going to say we need to replace the TC resolution is
amended with something
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default, and
adds to it.
[...]
2)
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
overturn it.
The fact there's a backdoor that was inserted that allowed him to
overturn the
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:16:57AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision
at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the
default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to invoke the GR
clause in that
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
overturn it.
The fact there's a
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
resolutions:
11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
1. the proposed GR doesn't overturn TCs decision about the default
Linux init system, but holds that one up and adds something about
loose coupling of init systems and packages[1]
The fact it has to be stated explicitly is insane.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
There is also this decision of the CTTE:
The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
about whether software may require
* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
resolutions:
11th Feb as modified by
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:16:57AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision
at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the
default Linux init system for jessie, I see
]] Russ Allbery
(Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)
Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
individual developers
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:42:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think you're overreacting.
After some cool-off, I agree.
DAM, please disregard my messages. Sorry.
I'm still displeased at the reading of the language, but it's clear this isn't
a blatent abuse.
Sorry, Ian. I overreated.
Cheers,
On 2014-02-28, Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org wrote:
2. Loose coupling of init systems
In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
Hi
I'm not fully sure about the implications if we vote this in.
So, I'm trying to
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call for
seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly to
a vote so that the project can state
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:15:09PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
Logind requires systemd.
This is false, and therefore the rest of the question is irrelevant.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:22:14PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
We all want there to be multiple implementations of standard, reasonable
APIs so that we can choose software based on its merits and not because
it's the only implementation of a useful interface. We also all live in
the real world where that doesn't
On 2014-03-02, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
--gj572EiMnwbLXET9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:15:09PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
Logind requires systemd.
This is
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:22:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:15:09PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
Logind requires systemd.
This is false, and therefore the rest of the question is irrelevant.
I think the point of his question is to have an example that we
Hi,
Russ Allbery:
In other words, I'm advocating the same position that we have right now
for translations: the package maintainer is not expected to translate
their package to other languages, but they are expected to incorporate
translations as they are made available. The translators bear
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0800, NoTo CTTE wrote:
Four people get to decide what operating system debian is.
Four. And we have to accept that for some reason.
Debian developers don't have to accept it; they can pass a GR choosing a
different default if they think that systemd is the
Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses givenin the article?The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.Now it suddenly is.Furthermore gnome stole libgtk from the gimp project recentlyand then they made an incompatable "libgtk" 3.0.And now they're requiring all
Yes, by all means we should ignore the fake personas, Mr. Natural Linux,
whoever you are.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Natural Linux naturalli...@dcemail.comwrote:
Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses given
in the article?
The fact is, last year none of
Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine
this is becoming a popular point of view.
Cheers,
Paul
Says the systemd camp, which uses politics in every fight it wages
(and it usually wins). Using the tech-ctte to change the OS in a
fundamental way itself is an
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Hi,
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly
to a vote so
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
users. So the
201 - 245 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
