Re: Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, let's being sensible
Changed the subject slightly. Sorry Sam, replying to this list with the previous mail does not work (evolution). Nevertheless being Swedish I don't find any offensive tone in my wording, please tell me where I failed! (As you might no know we are very honest in what we do (and write)), no hypocrisy here. Nevertheless, (not being an English native speaker/writer) What could I do to make this discussion going forward? Or is it already too late even if Ian has not been able to finish his latest draft? Kurt?? Thanks anyway for raising this extremely sensitive issue again.
Re: Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
Jonathan, FYI: From a mail From Uoti Urpala: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/12/msg00054.html fact: There is in practice no development of new alternative init systems happening, and no clear reason to believe that if it hypothetically did occur, there would be particular problems. Certainly there are no concrete problems in need of resolution. Did you see this mail? > I don't believe that that kind of tone is welcome on this list. I > understand how you could feel that way, but if you read a bit closer > you would see that openrc, runit and other init systems have come up > multiple times on this list and on debian-devel recently. A few > people have mentioned that sysvinit scripts come up in discussion so > much because they tend to be a common denominator that can be used > across init systems as a fallback, the people who refer to sysvinit > scripts in such a fashion do not intend to imply that the alternative > to systemd should be sysvinit per sé. Again, systemd versus sysvinit is not the real issue. It is about systemd versus _any_ alternative. And don't talk about tone, look at this mail list archive, one contribution quoted above. > If you look at the current proposals[1], none of the options > explicitly mention sysvinit, it talks about systemd and other init > systems, I doubt it's at all necessary to mention all of them by > name. Anyone who cares about init systems other than systemd probably > already uses one or more of those. Again, see above. And don't insult me, that is not polite. I've been a user, supporter and contributor to Debian for a very long time. Just take some time to search (in different forums), if you find the time to do that. Thanks!
Re: Re: Draft ballot
How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
Re: Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
Hello, I've purposely kept out of this discussion, hoping that you all can behave in a civil manner. Obviously not. I don't rank you mail defective, there have bee several other on this list. Anyway, this whole GR is about systemd or sysvinit, and everybody pretends they don't know about alternatives, like OpenRC, initng, runit, monit, s6, daemontools, and especially Shepherd. Are you all blind to Free Software progressing steadily, in spite of something that would hurt Debian as a distribution for many years to come? Thank you all, (Sam you do really rush things unnecessarily too much)
Re: Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi, > 6.2. Composition > > 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should >usually have at least 4 members. > 2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may >recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose >(individually) to appoint them or not. > 3. When there are 5 members or fewer the Technical Committee may >appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6. > 4. When there have been 5 members or fewer for at least one week the >Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of >members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per >appointment. Why not avoid the casting vote problem by stipulating that the number of members should always be an odd number. In case it is a problem of keeping this number always odd, at least when voting is required, the number of voters should be odd (either by excluding or including one voter). (Yes, I know about the Condorcet Voting System with Schwartz Sequential Dropping.) Sincerely -- 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/1416318282.11764.95.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Get real man. This is a very important issue in the whole free software world. Freedom of choice or not, especially for *nix*. -- 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/1415485595.2857.2.ca...@kth.se
Re: Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
> Svante Signell: > > > > > And OpenSUSE also dropped support: > > > > Of course RHEL and Fedora dropped sysvinit support, they are Redhat > > derived. Can anybody guess where systemd is developed? > > > Well, OpenSUSE (and several others who have by now switched to systemd) > are not. So? Why do you cut out the most important part of that message? You all trigged on the first part, I should not have mentioned any company at all, sorry :( > The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then, > until alternatives have stabilized :) (and systemd/uselessd is deferred > to PID 2). PID 1 should be as small as possible, see a proposed > implementation in: http://ewontfix.com/14/ -- 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/1414706542.4406.1.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
> > > > ArchLinux is clearly dropping sysvinit. RHEL documentation also seems > > to imply that Sysvinit and Upstart are both dropped in 7+. > > > > Fedora actually is not that decisive, as far as I read here - > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/243 > > It wasn't 19 months ago, but is petty decisive now: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/359 > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_addition_to_systemd_unit_files > > And OpenSUSE also dropped support: > > https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/openSUSE/12.3/#sec.123.sysv Of course RHEL and Fedora dropped sysvinit support, they are Redhat derived. Can anybody guess where systemd is devloped? The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then, until alternatives have stabilized :) (and systemd/uselessd is deferred to PID 2). PID 1 should be as small as possible, see a proposed implementation in: http://ewontfix.com/14/ -- 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/1414681924.15088.222.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Hi, This is incredible, 90+ postings are from the pro systemd people. Are you afraid of something? Where do the other side of view speak up. Seems like the same thing happening again when the default init system was chosen, the more loudly the more strength in affecting peoples opinions. Keep on, and you will win again :-( -- 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/1414262802.4095.5.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
(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 the users are second class citizens with respect to Debian. 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 side by refusing to use software that is going in the wrong direction and promote alternatives. -- 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/1414058134.15088.112.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hello, Please don't forget to make the number of members in the CTTE an odd number too, either by adding or removing one member. This was shortly discussed especially in: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=+636783#180 onwards and summarized in #210. Thanks! -- 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/1414056135.15088.101.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
