Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-26 00:31:18)
> I'll probably stop replying here since I feel like I'm repeating 
> myself over and over and over and over again.

You didn't repeat youself.  Thanks for spelling out your opinions to me.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Cyril Brulebois]

Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-26):
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 19:50:48)
> > Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
> >> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> >>> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
> >>> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing 
> >>> lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
> >> 
> >> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the 
> >> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?
> >
> > Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, 
> > no, I frankly do not follow.
> 
> Why do you talk about Jessie?  I do not talk about Jessie, I talk about 
> a bug in Debian and how we can fix it.
> 
> I believe that the only time I mentioned "Jessie" in this thread (till 
> now) was in a sentence where I explicitly propose to *not* target that 
> suite if needed to move forward with this bug.

Because jessie is what matters now, then we can look at init-less
debootstrap, and figure out whether this bug makes sense at all, and if
it needs fixing. The only occurrence (I'm aware of) is in init context
(forced sysvinit then forced systemd).

> Do you understand my question now?

No.

> >>> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> >>> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> >>> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving 
> >>> area.
> >>
> >> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess [...] that you are referring to "this 
> >> late in the release cycle" in .
> [mutual apologies snipped]
> >> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that 
> >> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
> >> sentence quickly at first.
> > 
> > I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I 
> > really don't follow you there either.
> 
> What I call throwing mud is your introducing dislikes of systemd when 
> that's not what the bug is about.

That's very much not true, see above.

> (Heck, the title of the bug is even the opposite - stemming from the era 
> past 4 months ago when systemd was not the default).

Addressed above as well.

> Back to my question: Did I guess correctly that your "this late in the 
> release cycle" in  is what you mean 
> by "already mentioned"?
> 
> (Again, let me emphasize that I am talking about a bug, not a release 
> and no specific init system).

I do mean that, and mails to debian-boot@, and mails to debian-ctte@,
and mails to debian-devel@, and mails to debian-private@. Pick your
favourite.

> >> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - 
> >> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently 
> >> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any 
> >> possible circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but 
> >> _after_ the release will be applied as-is with no need for further 
> >> testing nor discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone 
> >> else?
> >
> > No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't 
> > be considered for jessie, that's all.
> 
> "Either"?!?
> 
> So I guessed wrong further up, or what?  Sorry if that's the case - it 
> was unintentional.  Perhaps it helps if you spell out to me what you are 
> talking about, instead of only making remarks that $stuff has already 
> been discussed $enough.  Seems _your_ $stuff is init-specific and _your_ 
> $enough is suite-specific, and you then impose that on my $stuff and 
> $enough which are different ones.  Seems you are reading between the 
> lines of what I wrote and then get upset when I do the same.

I've rephrased it (again) in my first paragraph.

> You mention Jessie again - that's besides the point!

No, that's very relevant, again, see above.

> >> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you 
> >> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing 
> >> so as an NMU?
> >
> > To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed, 
> > whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping 
> > this bug report once jessie is released.
> 
> You have made it quite clear that you do not believe putting more 
> attention to this bug is "going to change anything here."  How then do 
> _you_ propose to get it "considered, reviewed, whatever"?

All mentioned in the first paragraph.


I'll probably stop replying here since I feel like I'm repeating myself
over and over and over and over again.


Bottom lines:
 - debootstrap in jessie is not going to get changed WRT this bug.
 - and since you're not specifically interested in jessie, please don't
   touch debootstrap in unstable or experimental either; instead, let
   people figure out what to do with it after the jessie release.


KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Di

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 19:50:48)
> Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
>> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
>>> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
>>> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing 
>>> lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
>> 
>> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the 
>> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?
>
> Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, 
> no, I frankly do not follow.

Why do you talk about Jessie?  I do not talk about Jessie, I talk about 
a bug in Debian and how we can fix it.

I believe that the only time I mentioned "Jessie" in this thread (till 
now) was in a sentence where I explicitly propose to *not* target that 
suite if needed to move forward with this bug.

Do you understand my question now?


>>> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
>>> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
>>> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving 
>>> area.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess [...] that you are referring to "this 
>> late in the release cycle" in .
[mutual apologies snipped]
>> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that 
>> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
>> sentence quickly at first.
> 
> I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I 
> really don't follow you there either.

What I call throwing mud is your introducing dislikes of systemd when 
that's not what the bug is about.

(Heck, the title of the bug is even the opposite - stemming from the era 
past 4 months ago when systemd was not the default).

Back to my question: Did I guess correctly that your "this late in the 
release cycle" in  is what you mean 
by "already mentioned"?

(Again, let me emphasize that I am talking about a bug, not a release 
and no specific init system).


>> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - 
>> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently 
>> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any 
>> possible circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but 
>> _after_ the release will be applied as-is with no need for further 
>> testing nor discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone 
>> else?
>
> No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't 
> be considered for jessie, that's all.

"Either"?!?

So I guessed wrong further up, or what?  Sorry if that's the case - it 
was unintentional.  Perhaps it helps if you spell out to me what you are 
talking about, instead of only making remarks that $stuff has already 
been discussed $enough.  Seems _your_ $stuff is init-specific and _your_ 
$enough is suite-specific, and you then impose that on my $stuff and 
$enough which are different ones.  Seems you are reading between the 
lines of what I wrote and then get upset when I do the same.

You mention Jessie again - that's besides the point!


>> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you 
>> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing 
>> so as an NMU?
>
> To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed, 
> whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping 
> this bug report once jessie is released.

You have made it quite clear that you do not believe putting more 
attention to this bug is "going to change anything here."  How then do 
_you_ propose to get it "considered, reviewed, whatever"?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Philip Hands]

Svante Signell  writes:
...
> Is this command something in debootstrap or the installer?
> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"

  https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


pgpMjMbFfzmy5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Svante Signell]

On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 19:50 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
> > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> > > I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for
> > > tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing
> > > lists, etc. is going to change anything here.

> No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't be
> considered for jessie, that's all.

And the reason is the freeze?

> > If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you
> > are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing
> > so as an NMU?
> 
> To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed,
> whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping
> this bug report once jessie is released.


>From https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668001#60

Is this command something in debootstrap or the installer?
preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416945074.11764.290.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Cyril Brulebois]

Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> > I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for
> > tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing
> > lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
> 
> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the
> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?

Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, no,
I frankly do not follow.

> > I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> > system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> > is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess now (reading again a couple times very 
> slowly) that you are referring to "this late in the release cycle" in 
> .
> 
> I am sorry that until now I read that as simply "go away, too late!"

I'm no native English speaker/writer, so I try to stick to non
convoluted wordings, but I guess I can easily fail at doing so.

> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that
> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that
> sentence quickly at first.

I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I
really don't follow you there either.

> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just -
> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently
> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any possible
> circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but _after_ the
> release will be applied as-is with no need for further testing nor
> discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone else?

No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't be
considered for jessie, that's all.

> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you
> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing
> so as an NMU?

To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed,
whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping
this bug report once jessie is released.


KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Cyril,

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
>> August 8th, Debian began supporting¹ choice among several init 
>> systems. August 21st, Debian changed² default init.
>>
>> To me, flexibility is an important feature of Debian.  I am excited 
>> that Debian extends its flexibility to cover several init systems.
>>
>> Others agree, apparently³: Among those testing our system while this 
>> new flexibility is in place, ~20% use a non-default init system.
>>
>> For fresh installs, picking a non-default init requires a workaround: 
>> First install default init system, then replace with your own choice.  
>> Remember to also check for and purge any cruft pulled in by that 
>> detour.
>>
>> October 17th a fix was proposed at 
>> .
>>
>> @Testers of Debian: Please test debootstrap with that patch applied 
>> and report your experiences, good and bad, to 
>> <668...@bugs.debian.org>.
>>
>> @Debian-installer team: Please reconsider applying that patch.  If 
>> not targeted Jessie then in another suite: Any degree of adoption 
>> eases ability to test, which in turn eases ability to adopt further.
>
> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing lists, 
> etc. is going to change anything here.

You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the potential 
to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?


> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.

Thanks for clarifying.  I guess now (reading again a couple times very 
slowly) that you are referring to "this late in the release cycle" in 
.

I am sorry that until now I read that as simply "go away, too late!"

Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that in 
same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
sentence quickly at first.

Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - as 
already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently still 
so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any possible 
circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but _after_ the 
release will be applied as-is with no need for further testing nor 
discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone else?

If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you are 
too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing so as 
an NMU?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

[Cyril Brulebois]

Jonas Smedegaard  (2014-11-25):
> August 8th, Debian began supporting¹ choice among several init systems.
> August 21st, Debian changed² default init.
> 
> To me, flexibility is an important feature of Debian.  I am excited that 
> Debian extends its flexibility to cover several init systems.
> 
> Others agree, apparently³: Among those testing our system while this new 
> flexibility is in place, ~20% use a non-default init system.
> 
> For fresh installs, picking a non-default init requires a workaround: 
> First install default init system, then replace with your own choice.  
> Remember to also check for and purge any cruft pulled in by that detour.
> 
> October 17th a fix was proposed at .
> 
> @Testers of Debian: Please test debootstrap with that patch applied and 
> report your experiences, good and bad, to <668...@bugs.debian.org>.
> 
> @Debian-installer team: Please reconsider applying that patch.  If not 
> targeted Jessie then in another suite: Any degree of adoption eases 
> ability to test, which in turn eases ability to adopt further.

I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for
tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing lists,
etc. is going to change anything here.

I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init
system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap is
not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.


KiBi.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141125173133.gk6...@mraw.org