Le 29/11/2019 à 23:32, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>
> Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
> Proposal D.
>
> Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
> and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
>
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> I think that clause 9 could be significantly reduced, to something such
> as the following, which still captures the main ideas of the current
> clause. But we clearly disagree on how much details should go into the
> GR, and I don't see us agreeing anytime soon :)
>
Hi,
Note that I'm not in the best position to propose changes, because I
am unlikely to vote it very high in any case.
On 29/11/19 at 11:44 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 2/ It says:
> > > If policy consensus cannot be reached on such a facility, the
> > > Technical Committee should decide based
> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
gregor> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with
>> proposal C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying
>> to figure out if there are any
Hello Martin, and seconders of proposal F,
On Fri 29 Nov 2019 at 10:16PM +02, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> cross-distribution cooperation
I would be grateful for an informal summary of why
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
> C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
> if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a
> criticism of this
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian
On 11/29/2019 9:16 PM, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
>
> Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are
Hi.
I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a
criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical
differences I
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
Seconded.
--
Jordi Mallach
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
Proposal D.
Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
against systemd, but when so built, it cannot run without
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> > cross-distribution cooperation
>
> Seconded.
The message was nog signed.
Kurt
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> > cross-distribution cooperation
>
> Seconded.
Let me sign this before Kurt responds.
--
Luca
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
So I counted enough seconds and it's on the website now.
Kurt
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
Seconded.
--
intrigeri
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> cross-distribution cooperation
Seconded.
--
Luca Filipozzi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:01:38PM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Seconded
That wasn't signed.
Kurt
I second the below amendment.
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
> Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian
Seconded
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 3:54 PM Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> cross-distribution cooperation
> >
> > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5)
Am 29.11.19 um 21:16 schrieb Martin Michlmayr:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
>
>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
Seconded.
Enrico
--
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
>
> Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in
> the
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
>
> Cross-distribution standards and
Am 29.11.19 um 21:16 schrieb Martin Michlmayr:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian constitution:
>
>
I'd like submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
cooperation
This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
Debian constitution:
Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in
the
Simon Richter writes:
> No, Sam's interpretation was correct. My assumption was that in the
> other direction it was already obvious that "it should work with
> systemd" was not negotiable and no one was really asking for that. I'm
> not sure we need to spell that out.
Oh, indeed, I misread
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:07:58AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sam, I think you misunderstood Simon's concern. He's not looking for
> guidance for packages that don't work properly with sysvinit. He's
> looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly with *systemd*
> (the
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam, I think you misunderstood Simon's concern. He's not
Russ> looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly
Russ> with sysvinit. He's looking for guidance for packages that
Russ> don't work properly with *systemd* (the
Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
> Simon> Non-init-related facilities are where I'd expect
> Simon> incompatibilities to arise, and it is a bit sad that there is
> Simon> only one amendment that effectively addresses this question
> Simon> -- because
Simon Richter writes:
> In my opinion, that question is the core of the argument we're having.
> Daemon startup is effectively solved on the technical side, and the only
> question remaining there is whether including an init script should
> remain mandatory or not.
For the record, just to
Hi
Am 29.11.19 um 14:46 schrieb Sam Hartman:
>> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
>
> Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather
> Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the
> Simon> discussion period, I think that having something
> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
Simon> Hi,
Simon> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[regarding declarative facilities]
>> I have heard more than one person say that they are unhappy that
>> the current situation has been blocking specifically
Hello all,
Sam Hartman [2019-11-29 8:46 -0500]:
> > "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
>
> Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather
> Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the
> Simon> discussion period, I think that having something
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:47:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I was of course speaking metaphorically.
I understand, but I think it gets lost.
> I note that the very word
> "flamewar" which you use yourself has the same problem, at least
> etymologically.
haha, right, though just
Hi Sam,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:46:31AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Martin [Pitt] has publically stated he's one of the people I reached out
> to in developing my proposals.
> As I understand, he's been active in maintaining systemd both in Ubuntu and
> Debain.
Indeed, most of my
* Sam Hartman [2019-11-29 07:13]:
> Ian> I think this is a subjunctive.
>
> I agree with Ian.
Thanks for the clarification! You learn something new every day.
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Review of proposals"):
> Ian, could you please stop characterizing those stupid flamewars and mud
> fights as war? War is something completly different, people die.
I was of course speaking metaphorically. I note that the very word
"flamewar" which you use yourself has
> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather
Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the
Simon> discussion period, I think that having something proposed by
Simon> the systemd maintainers on the ballot
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:22:37PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained
> > sponsors.
> just sigh.
> Michael, I'm very very likely to sponsor anything you have written so
> far. Please publish something so it's on the table
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For those reasons, I am not sure if I will rank proposal D above FD. I
> > would very much prefer if it were compressed to a proposal of about the
> > same length as proposals B or C.
> I am sorry it is so long, indeed. It's just
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:18:37PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Ordering
>
> In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
> a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
>
> Proposal E / Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:11:48AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
[...]
> I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained sponsors.
just sigh.
Michael, I'm very very likely to sponsor anything you have written so
far. Please publish something so it's on the table and Sam cannot
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Hi, I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before
Ansgar> calling for a vote. Michael Biebl said he is looking into
Ansgar> drafting an alternative, but has been too busy with work in
Ansgar> the last few days. He would
Hi,
I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before calling for a
vote. Michael Biebl said he is looking into drafting an alternative,
but has been too busy with work in the last few days. He would
therefore like to have a bit more time to prepare.
Ansgar
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Martin Michlmayr writes ("Typo in proposal B"):
>> "It is important that the project support the efforts"
>>
>> s/support/supports/?
>>
>> (I know British and American English don't agree whether an
>> organization is singular
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For example, it raises a (probably valid) concern about
> > "non-init-related [declarative] systemd facilities", but:
> > 1/ it mixes it with an argument that declarative facilities are better.
> > Well, maybe I can agree with
Martin Michlmayr writes ("Typo in proposal B"):
> "It is important that the project support the efforts"
>
> s/support/supports/?
>
> (I know British and American English don't agree whether an
> organization is singular or plural but it seems to me that
> "the project" is singular.)
I think
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Review of proposals"):
> In Proposal D:
Hi. Thanks for the review.
> Concern about length of proposal D
> ==
I'm going to deal with this first.
> I am a bit concerned about the length of proposal D, and the fact that
> it is both very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Martin Michlmayr writes ("Typo in proposal D"):
> "which is not the what the user wanted"
>
> "not the what": s/the//
Obviously, this is a good fix and doesn't change the meaning. Kurt,
can you please adjust the text of my proposal D ? (I hereby
* Kurt Roeckx [2019-11-29 00:39]:
> > The proposal also contains Markdown syntax (**, ``) which imho should
> > be converted to HTML on the web site.
>
> If Ian can confirm that the intention is to render this in italic,
> I'm happy to change the *s.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with the ``.
51 matches
Mail list logo
