Adrian Bunk writes:
> Leaving tactical aspects aside, IMHO the important point is that there
> is a compromise line that seems reasonable for all members of the TC:
> For the upstart side of the TC, the most important question is T/L.
> For the systemd side of the TC, the most important question
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD,
> > then T is dead.
>
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your f
El Thu, 6 de Feb 2014 a las 7:41 PM, Schlacta, Christ
escribió:
I'd like to request that upstart be chosen over systemd mainly
because there's already a large availability of deb packages that
support init mainly due to ubuntu. Ubuntu acts as a gateway distro
to the debian universe, and is a
Russ Allbery writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
>>> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
>>> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
>>> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
>>> - FD
>
>> In this case, I
I'd like to request that upstart be chosen over systemd mainly because
there's already a large availability of deb packages that support init
mainly due to ubuntu. Ubuntu acts as a gateway distro to the debian
universe, and is a basis upon which numerous other distros are based as
well.
As such,
Anthony Towns writes:
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
> ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals considered
> reasonable by all the members, and accept whatever a ma
On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD,
> then T is dead.
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
ctte to be able to come
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:20:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> This is one of the major reasons why I'm voting GR second. I see Bdale's
> point that we shouldn't abdicate our responsibility to make the best
> decision that we can, and I followed that maxim by voting my preference
> first. B
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Presuming everyone votes, where you put F only has an impact in either
>> case only if at least three other ctte members will also vote FD above
>> T or DT (given UT is irrelevant); which based on the already
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 7 February 2014 06:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> > resolution"):
> >> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
> >> we've already had
On 7 February 2014 06:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
>> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
>> we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not going to defeat
>> any option, so thei
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>...
> Now, I think there is currently a shared agreement in Debian that
>
> "all Debian packages (unless there's a good reason) should run on
> sysvinit + Linux + amd64 , support outside that is best-effort"
sysvinit
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
> and as reaction to that they are setting policy and that this will
> be allowed under 6.1
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
> we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not going to defeat
> any option, so their position in your vote is largely irrelevant.
If
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> I'm guessing that under you're asking for the interpretation of
> this in 6.1.1:
> | In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
> | documentation makes decisions initially
>
> And think that because the policy mai
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > In fact, if this was your intention all along, it's not clear at all
> > to me why we had to couple these votes.
>
> You'll notice that my ranking of the init systems differ
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> Finally, I have hard time seeing under which powers could L be decided
> by the tech-ctte: the policy team hasn't worked on that (§6.1.1), there
> is no juridiction overlap that I could see (nor a disagreement about the
>
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
> > that has the right effect, please suggest something else.
>
> Yes, I think t
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Either of these options will require 2:1, though.
> >
> > Let me quote §4.1.4:
> >
> >Together, the Developers may: [...] Make or override any decision
> >authorised by the powers
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > > what
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect. The
> > des
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> > the GR is being voted on your de
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> > the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> >
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> the GR isn't trying to override the
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> the GR isn't trying to override the ctte. You could for
> instance do
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:58:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
> > actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
> > have ignored.
>
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> >> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
> >> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
> >> - B: something that does overrule
Sorry to add more noise to #727708, but I feel the need to clarify some
accusations that have been made before.
First of all, there's been no malice from our side as you have accused us of in
this thread. As an example, if you look at the last gdm3 and gnome-shell 3.8.x
uploads and their bug repor
Colin Watson writes:
> I think I signed my votes when I started on the TC, but then noticed
> that nobody else was doing so and stopped bothering. I can go back to
> signing them in future, though, since it sounds like it would make some
> people more comfortable.
I just sign all of my email, a
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Changing my vote to:
>
> 1. FD further discussion
With this and Colin's change of vote, 4 TC members have ranked FD
first. The outcome is no longer in doubt: FD wins.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
[bug CC removed]
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:46:32AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
> > guess it's up to the secretary.)
>
> I've actually asked that they do that befor
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I hope we only have to go round this business once more!
Quite!
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
Hi,
Please give earnest consideration to limiting posting to #727708
(the init system technical committee bug) to only those members of
the committee and whomever else they feel needs to contribute to
the discussion at this stage.
The comments from the public gallery do not help the situation ri
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> > I hereby call for votes on my previo
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:32:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
>
> I vote:
In response to the uncertainty
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dixit:
>Now, I think there is currently a shared agreement in Debian that
>
>"all Debian packages (unless there's a good reason) should run on
> sysvinit + Linux + amd64 , support outside that is best-effort"
Eh, no! Debian is the universal OS, and it has quite a numb
Hi all,
As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
init[2].
It is currently controlled via a FIFO. It supports only two commands (reboot
and poweroff).
It follows the classic style of config.def.h
My first and last message to this list.
To Those Who Understand
---
Time ago, Linux was conceived as a Unix like OS. Thanks to internet it won
acceptance between hackers familiarized with Unix, guys that liked and valued
to have a Unix like OS at home. That first enthusiasm
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> That is a very interesting clarification, and not one that seems at all
> obvious from the text of 'L'. 'L' talks about "Software outside of an init
> system's implementation", which does not seem like
Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 10.50:05 Colin Watson a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init
> > systems alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same
> > [bad] support) on maintai
Le jeudi 06 février 2014 à 11:18 +, Colin Watson a écrit :
> My interpretation of L is that GNOME may depend on logind (or logind-208
> or whatever) as long as that dependency is declared such that another
> init system can provide it. I appreciate that there is the abstract
> question of wha
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
> system for jessie"):
> > So looking at the votes today, I would have said that both Ian and
> > Andi's original votes are against this (ranking the options which
> > allow specifying a dependency on a sp
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > I vote:
> >
> > 1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> > 2. DL systemd default in jessie, re
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think what we're trying to say looks something like this:
...
> The result of that GR is A. However, the choice picked by the above
> algorithm is B. So B becomes the TC decision, despite the fact that A is
> the re
(resend with the correct BTS email address)
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for
something simpler"):
> What does this mean in the concrete example that lead to the ctte bug?
> That is:
>
> Provided logind is only provided by systemd (the current situation).
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:05:05PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 11:50, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I don't interpret L as meaning that everything must support "all" init
> > systems, certainly not "alike" (indeed the text of that option is
> > explicit that it isn't necessarily alike)
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:42:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/02/14 at 22:41 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
> > anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
> > to install Debian… and debootstrap
On 02/06/2014 11:50, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't interpret L as meaning that everything must support "all" init
> systems, certainly not "alike" (indeed the text of that option is
> explicit that it isn't necessarily alike). Rather, I interpret it as
> saying that software-outside-init must be f
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:43:25PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Colin Watson dixit:
> >Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
> >preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as "efforts to
> >resolve [the issue] via consensus".
>
> But is not diversity s
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
> > alike
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?"):
> In this case I suggest to decide just the question of the default init
> system on Linux architectures first and address further details later if
> no consensus can be found elsewhere. Finding the correct wording then
> sho
Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> > Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
> >> > pid 1
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
> alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same [bad]
> support) on maintainers and I feel it's too coercitive.
I don't interpret L as mea
Hi,
On 02/06/2014 06:33, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and
>> their drafts?
>
> I personally suspect that we have exhausted the capacity of the TC to deal
> with this problem, and that spending more time on it
This is silly. It's pretty clear that everybody made up their minds a
long time ago, and no matter how the resolution is worded, it will come
down systemd > upstart 5:4. The only question is on how to guide
maintainers once the init system is changed.
-Rick-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
Sorry for yet-another-mail on that (long-lasting) bug, but I feel it's
important; so feel free to dismiss it if it isn't bringing to the
conversation.
Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 16.27:15 Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:
>
> 4x UL > DL > UT > DT (steve,
56 matches
Mail list logo
