I vote about freedom of choice init system
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546a5db2.9070...@lucylaika.ovh
goli...@riseup.net wrote:
I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could
http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
Thank you for your contribute. Next!
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
m...@linux.it wrote:
goli...@riseup.net wrote:
I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I
could
http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
Thank you for your contribute. Next!
It might be your opinion that GNU/Linux is not about choice, but it is
often said and the reason why
Seconded
I completely back the idea to avoid a fork when ever possible. It's
possible to maintain systemd and just let it to do the init stuff. Syslog
and other daemons can be implemented independently, as for example in a
classic Unix way. SuSE Linux Enterprise 12 has gone this way just now.
I agree with the proposal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes (Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems)):
For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period
Hi,
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian Jackson writes (Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice
of init systems)):
For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice
of init systems)):
For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)):
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'.
$ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days'
Sun Nov
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)):
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)):
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)):
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
The last (and only) formal amendment I accepted was my own, on Sunday
the 19th.
It looks like you're right.
Great
On 23 October 2014 18:28, Vittorio Beggi (Gmail)
vittorio.be...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems.
I definitely agree with the proposal.
--
Vittorio Beggi
Me too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
(unfortunately this mail will probably not result in the correct thread
order. Don't know if the cause is my MUA evolution, or the web
interface of the debian-vote list archives)
On 2014-10-17 09:35, Hörmetjan Yiltiz wrote:
Users still cannot vote?
No.
Hello,
It is well known that
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software
mainly for themselves, not the users, see for example the latest
development of Gnome. The only way to change this is by creating a large
enough user group taking
On Thursday 23 October 2014 06:08 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software
mainly for themselves, not the users, see for example the latest
development of Gnome. The only way
Hi, Svante,
I fear your wonderfully terse phrasing may cause some people to react
more negatively to what you said than you perhaps intended. Please
forgive me for the boldness of suggsting alternate phrasings below, in
the hope of clarifying things for everyone.
Svante Signell:
It is well
Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg1.html.
I definitely agree with the proposal.
--
Vittorio Beggi
PHX di Beggi Vittorio
via Cirenaica, 6
35141 Padova PD
Tel/Fax: 049 8756276
Mobile: 340 4871253
mailto:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 08:38:36PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2014 06:08 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:55:34AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
The same applies to many upstream developers, they develop software
mainly for themselves, not the
Hi Neil,
I realized that myself afterwards, please forgive my ignorance.
Indeed, I'm not a registered Debian developer, so my vote cannot be
accepted.
Sergey
On 22 October 2014 13:39, Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose
myself what init system to use in my Debian setup.
This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in
db.debian.org. Unfortunately,
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
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
Hi,
On 16.10.2014 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds.
[...]
** Begin Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The
--
L.S.C.A. Francisco González Flores
Redes y Comunicaciones
CDE PRI Chihuahua
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 16:05 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
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
Andy,
Thank you for the email.
You can currently use Debian without systemd as long as no package you use
depends on systemd.
That depends on systemd hook is a primary objection for those of us who know
better. Why should a non-init package depend on a particular init system?
Only systemd
Hi debian-vote,
The below poster redirected their response to my off-list mail back
to the list. I explicitly mailed them off-list and with a reply-to
of only myself set in order to avoid further list noise, and because
they seemed like they were genuinely confused.
I now see that they had an
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.
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
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
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),
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
Hi,
Not sure if I am able to vote on the issue; however, having been a Debian user
for two years and a Linux user for nearly six years and having used a number of
different distros in my time. I would like to vote in favour of keeping the
traditional freedom of choice for init systems in line
Le dim. 19 oct. 2014 à 10:54, John James
johnja...@broken-pixel.co.uk a écrit :
Hi,
Hi John,
Not sure if I am able to vote on the issue; however, having been a
Debian user for two years and a Linux user for nearly six years and
having used a number of different distros in my time. I
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson writes:
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:
Could you change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
(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 discussion period
I'm an end user who normally only reads this list. I'd like to add my
perspective to this question though, for what it's worth. I'm on Debian
testing, which is using systemd now. The only obvious difference to me
is my laptop boots faster, which is nice, but ...
1) Binary logs? No. Even I've
Hi,
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 it (A.1(2)).
This resets the minimum discussion period (A.2(4)).
For the avoidance of any doubt,
On 17 October 2014 20:07, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes (Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems)):
And, renumber the already-existing section 3 to be section 4:
- 3. Notes and rubric
+ 3. Notes and rubric
Don points out to me in private
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion.
When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of this matter?
Thanks,
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:40:49AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion.
When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of this matter?
I did have to come
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Simon Richter wrote:
The technical shortcomings of systemd are the smaller problem here. The
way I've been treated (stopping short of directly accusing me to
actively look for problems to complain about) whenever I was raising a
technical issue suggests to me
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
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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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:
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
