Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: [ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ] Hi! This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. Since this or the other proposol failed to reach the needed amount of sponsors, the TC has made a decision and there wasn't any activity about this over 4 weeks I'm expiring this GR. You have 1 week to object to this. (This doesn't have anything to do with the one that was started by Matthew Vernon.) Kurt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OpenRC + Hurd status (was: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian)
On 01/28/2014 11:44 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: Option D * Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available. - architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default in the meantime. - a reimplementation of OpenRC, providing the same interfaces to the wider system, would satisfy the criteria above. I'm bothered by this phrasing. The wherever available doesn't sound appropriate to me. It doesn't even more now! :) I've also sent this to #727708, though it may be useful to write it here as well, if we finally go for a GR (option which I don't support btw). With the latest sysvinit package from Sid (eg: 2.88dsf-47) and the latest OpenRC package from Experimental (eg: 0.12.4+20131230-8), then Hurd just boots fine with OpenRC! :) Here's how to do it: apt-get install initscripts sysv-rc sysvinit \ sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils update-alternatives --config runsystem The later command tells hurd to use sysv-rc (otherwise it continues to use the Hurd specific boot hack thing...). Then just install OpenRC on top of that: apt-get install openrc I'm not sure installing sysv-rc is even needed. Probably installing OpenRC first, then the other sysvinit packages would work as well. There's nothing more to it: it just works (tm)! :) Hoping that the status update and our porting efforts are appreciated, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: My experience with Hurd was ok-ish, though the console randomly doesn't come up bug was really frustrating, especially considering that Hurd only uses ext2. :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f1f044.2070...@debian.org
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:44:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: Option D * Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available. - architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default in the meantime. - a reimplementation of OpenRC, providing the same interfaces to the wider system, would satisfy the criteria above. For Hurd itself, it needs some fixes to be uploaded in sysvinit. It's not well known, but Hurd doesn't support *any* init system at all right now, it's only in the process of doing so. I wonder why it's taking so long to have the patches applied by the way (it's been waiting in the BTS since early September 2013). From my side, lack of any time in late 2013 and suffering from bad RSI for the last month. I'll not be doing much for the forseeable future due to the latter until things improve. Thankfully, this has been picked up and dealt with in the last week. Thanks to all involved for their efforts here. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140202193942.gd11...@codelibre.net
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
This one time, at band camp, Paul Tagliamonte said: I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet, and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work. Let the TC do their work. They're coming up on a vote, and they may even suggest a GR. This GR is premature. Seconded. Cheers, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On Ma, 28 ian 14, 07:41:26, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. Hi Guillem, if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then I will second your GR. In the meantime, it is probably better to focus our thoughts on something else; it is only a matter of days now. According to the latest updates the TC vote is quite likely to end up with FD, but only because they want to redo the vote to allow a GR to override their decision with simple majority. Under these circumstances, why do you think it would still be a good idea to continue with the GR and not wait for the outcome of the real vote? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
Guillem Jover writes ([Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian): This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. I would consider sponsoring a GR, but like others I would like to see the TC vote first. And, I strongly suggest you trim down both the number of options, and the length of the text for each option. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21223.46636.49434.780...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: Option D * Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available. - architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default in the meantime. - a reimplementation of OpenRC, providing the same interfaces to the wider system, would satisfy the criteria above. I'm bothered by this phrasing. The wherever available doesn't sound appropriate to me. This shows that the writer didn't have all the information in his hands when writing this text. So I think I should explain what's the current status of OpenRC and ports. 1/ kFreeBSD For kFreeBSD, it just works (minus some warnings about stuff not being mounted very very early in the boot which we'd have to investigate, though it doesn't seem so bad and even impacting at all, and my virtualbox VM just boots fine...). 2/ Hurd For Hurd itself, it needs some fixes to be uploaded in sysvinit. It's not well known, but Hurd doesn't support *any* init system at all right now, it's only in the process of doing so. I wonder why it's taking so long to have the patches applied by the way (it's been waiting in the BTS since early September 2013). So Hurd *will* support sysv-rc OpenRC *soon* if someone decides to fix sysvinit. Though OpenRC in Hurd itself is ok already. See #721917 if you want to know more. Once that bug is fixed, then we just need #736636 to be solved (with the attached patch). Since #721917 is blocking, and that it's taking so long to have things to move, I'm not in such a hurry to have the new patch in #736636 uploaded (the bug committer just got his access on the new OpenRC project on Alioth and will do the work by himself). 3/ Conclusion So, all together, I think it's reasonable to say that *we do* have OpenRC support on all platforms, and that it's only a mater of closing a few RC bugs with attached patches (so, nothing blocking). Hoping that this will help others to understand better what's going on and know what we are at today. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e7d07a.3030...@debian.org
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes: Hoping that this will help others to understand better what's going on and know what we are at today. Thank you for the update, Thomas. Bdale pgpGP9stzQaFl.pgp Description: PGP signature
[Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ] Hi! This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6)), because the TC seems to have been trying to do design work (failing §6.3(5)), and because even if they do have the power to decide on this (likely requiring a 3:1 majority in any case if they need to override the sysvinit maintainers, per §6.1(4)), I feel it's inappropriate for a small group of individuals to forcibly decide the global direction for the entire project. Such decisions, on issues that are as much technical as strategic, political or of a subjective design nature, can have huge implications for what contributors or other Debian-based projects might have to work on, or stop working on. I feel that such decisions must belong to the project at large. Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their solutions within Debian (or, with the exception of upstart, even updating the policy manual) before this binding ruling was sought. If they had done so, Debian could follow its usual organic and decentralized process, allowing the best solution for the project as a whole to emerge naturally through the consensus formed from the experience of these deployments. Instead, we have seen giant flamewars seemingly based largely on speculation, which have only made the situation worse by increasing acrimony within the project, with further polarization and antagonization between the different factions. IMO, forcing this issue via a small committee will not improve this in any way. In general, I've been quite unhappy with the excessive invocation of the TC recently, with developers seeming to view this as a first, rather than absolute last, resort. I think it's pernicious for the project to instill a regime of threats and force, that will almost always alienate at least one side of a dispute. It clearly denotes a dysfunctional project. It has even crossed my mind many times now, to propose a GR for each issue concerning project direction (if not all) escalated to the TC, or even propose a constitutional change to remove the TC's powers of coercion; restricting its rulings to be strictly advisory and non-binding, though I'm not sure this option would get wide traction amongst developers, if at all. I've been sitting back and trying to see the extent to which other developers support the view that the TC should not be deciding on issues of project direction; unfortunately, canvassing support from mailing lists is difficult, and handling a GR is quite a large undertaking, requiring a lot of time and energy, that others might not want or be able to invest, but would gladly get behind. So, with much reluctance and disappointment, I've finally caved and am considering proposing the following GR draft. Unfortunately nothing has changed up to this point; the TC is not backing off. I think the draft text should cover most of the options people seem to have expressed support for up to now. Note that it's not entirely clear how a _pending_ resolution by the TC would interact with a GR on the same, so I'd like input from the secretary before seeking support from sponsors, although to be honest I don't expect any problems here. As mentioned in the thread, if there's any issue with the above, the secretary can point it out during the discussion period if this gets support from enough sponsors. The two main changes are the addition of the explicit TC option, and the rewording of option B to not mention a GR explicitly, and to just postpone revisiting that decision to a later time. I chose that time to let some breathing after the jessie release, and because it's (usually) 1/3 of the non-frozen release time, so it would give enough room to deploy any possible changes before jessie+1. Attached is a diff against the original GR draft, for your convenience. ,--- DRAFT GR TEXT --- A General Resolution to select the default init system for Debian. Option A * Reinforce sysvinit and sysv-rc as the default init system. - the level of support for other init systems would remain unchanged; as with non-release architectures, they would be supported to the extent that their backers would be willing to expend their energy. Option B * Changing the default init system is ultimately desirable, but premature at this point in time. - supporters of other init systems should continue their efforts towards full adoption by Debian through guidance in the policy manual, natural formation of consensus, and wider support through Debian packages by persuading maintainers to accept patches
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet, and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work. Let the TC do their work. They're coming up on a vote, and they may even suggest a GR. This GR is premature. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
Hi, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes: ,--- DRAFT GR TEXT --- A General Resolution to select the default init system for Debian. Option A [...] Option H If people want to have a GR on the init system, could we please not entangle two issues in a single vote: 1. Default init system for jessie. 2. Init support in jessie+1. Also option C Defer the decision to the Technical Committee will be reduntant with another option once the TC makes a decision. I therefore suggest to wait until they made at least a decision on the default init on Linux[1]. Ansgar [1] Provided they don't explode before that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8761p5urjx@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 01/27/2014 08:39 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. please stop wasting people's time and let the TC do their work instead. Thanks. - -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJS5sJhAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNfewsP/jxx7hOGao19Ol2Nn6S7lPf7 cWaOtztdKA9hl6hWzOQV0zjUetfGIepMwx44IK1XoXB1bq5aDwoeDln+Wiedwkgf 4XFWdE9pbZWmzS28obYnJeddF/S/aqKPX7L+aO9cV66Mg+I4GmZm1THMUPce0LfM ISA3Qge8MrhYijbmJ/SlaIMXJimdbYG3RXJE9BeCn3Nld7flSsnWGXRvoidt7pVV FrnH18mQrmYLibi13xQOY2i+zPH7Z/BV+xHsRXv+0hA50uhclamNoRW8Lszv3RjB GAsPO/H3XWN8qgKEkqRRCT6kbXbfTw2ezUOKPktu9tOF2qLmjzN8ri6mKg6lLCah DdeqEg5i+JsvSlywo/nyHNsiPyzP8mvMdb+C3TNMLYOY1xXZ7OWMN42dbsz66iEd dtTbmnoRSxhrPRZgqJgoPAvf/qkVj2WMciKEmN/qIPzlQcb4PJvthYIv9EYcdRTL cFg/sYC0ygEgwlXb45tnk6v5wm5PwGfiysDLZlT9ZL8zagIrtGrO4Q1kDwuNzisQ Xh1gQdoi7PByXJjb3c/picpvsih545/J+ziCmGM+2boCpeEudplxBc9txbsvPmlQ AkApsgS7Z+JP0kXNkOFr2qukZFtlZ1RUNC0KwopBJ7rXCeI0Jfibq1xl5FhteaDN /ZTdY2B1QsKm6NcWzbqL =Fvvl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e6c266.8060...@bzed.de
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
Very much NOT seconded. I have way more interesting things to do than becoming an init system expert; and I would have to become one to be able to vote honestly in this GR. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140127203635.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. Hi Guillem, if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then I will second your GR. In the meantime, it is probably better to focus our thoughts on something else; it is only a matter of days now. In the past, I have been alternatively on the side of proposing an impopular GR, and of strongly criticising another GR for its uselessness. My personal conclusion is that in doubt, a GR could contain an « rotten tomatoes » option such as: « this GR should not have been proposed », perhaps with a better wording. Can you consider that addition ? I will take my share of tomatoes if it turns out that the Project finds the option useful ! Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140127224126.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net
