On November 16, 2019 10:50:59 PM UTC, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:40:10PM +0000, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>>
>> [2019-11-15 11:52] Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> > Dmitry, I suggest instead, this change to your original text:
>>
>> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
>> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package not
>> working with pid1 != systemd is RC bug, unless it was designed
>> by upstream to work exclusively with systemd and no support for
>> running without systemd is available.
>>
>> > That means that if upstream drop the init script, or say they do
>not
>> > care about non-systemd, we in Debian will still ship the init
>script
>> > (and apply needed patches if they exist).
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>>
>> Yes, I agree with your proposed change. We need four more votes for
>> this wording appear on ballot, I guess.
>
>Someone needs to be clear that something is proposed, and that
>it's being seconded. I don't see Ian either actually proposing it
>as an option, nor seconding it. As far as I understand, you actually
>made a different proposal without any seconds.
>
>I guess that "is RC bug" overrides the power of a delegate (the
>release team). The delegation
>(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/01/msg00009.html)
>says "Which issues are release-critical (RC)".
If this language survives, I'll propose an amendment to make it clear this is
not intended. Overriding the Release Team in this GR would be a bad idea.
As I've mentioned before, these need to be framed in terms of policy, not
RCness.
Scott K
