On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> > Yes. I would still prefer to see something like that. I don't
> > remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> > but perhaps something like
> >
> > We expect that Debian will continue to support mkultiple init
> > systems for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > would be acceptable to everyone ? I can't remember what the
> > objections were to my previous wording. Or some other phrasing.
>
> I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> true for at least some values of "support".
This discussion started since the
Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
tolerable.
in the L rider was interpreted by Russ as being valid forever, while
I read the whole resolution text (including this part) as only being
valid for jessie.
Does a TC vote for this strict rule in the L rider make it binding only
for jessie, or forever?
This is the important question here.
I am pretty sure the TC will anyway have to debate and decide on the
init system(s) for jessie+1 in 1-2 years.
Note that if a GR would re-affirm the TC decision, then a new GR might
be needed to change a T/L rider decision if it is not limted to jessie.
> Bdale
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
