Olav Vitters writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>
> So just to ensure I don't misunderstand:
> The way
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
So just to ensure I don't misunderstand:
The way I read the texts, you could have e.g. Upstart as default init
system and GNOME depend on systemd with UT? Meaning: software co
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I would be happy to do this. Anyone object to me prefixing
>Therefore, for jessie and later releases:
> before the T/L "Software ..." paragraphs ?
Following another exchange on IRC I have now d
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > == clarification text for all versions except GR ==
> >
> > This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem for
&
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> > jessie, but I would not object to including that text s
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> Bdale, if this is not acceptable to you then please say.
Bdale has said on irc that he's happy. So I hereby withdraw my
previous amendments and propose and accept and do not accept
amendments so as to pro
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> Adrian, does that address your point ? I think that phrasing makes it
> clear that the remaining text (whether T or L) applies past jessie,
> too.
To expand on what Adrian says in his next mails, the resul
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> > jessie, but I would not object to including that te
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> true for at least some values of "su
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Yes. I would still prefer to see something like that. I don't
> > remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> > but perhaps something like
> >
> > We expect that Debian will c
Ian Jackson writes:
> Yes. I would still prefer to see something like that. I don't
> remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> but perhaps something like
>
> We expect that Debian will continue to support mkultiple init
> systems for the foreseeable future.
>
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
>This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
>continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
...
> there is an "in jessie" at the top, and it is stated now
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Cameron Norman writes:
>
>> This is not really what I was interested in. I want a package for each
>> init system (init-systemd, init-upstart, etc.) that uses something like
>> init-select (under the hood) to prompt the user to change the init
>
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:44:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > No, it does not require sysvinit support for all packages indefinitely.
>
> > The current TC decision is *for jessie*.
>
> The D/U/O/V/GR options are for jessie. T and L aren't. Nothing in T or L
> are l
Adrian Bunk writes:
> No, it does not require sysvinit support for all packages indefinitely.
> The current TC decision is *for jessie*.
The D/U/O/V/GR options are for jessie. T and L aren't. Nothing in T or L
are limited to jessie. If that's what you think they should say, then you
need to
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:44:27PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> I think L is a bad technical design, regardless of the relative merits of
> the possible init systems that we might switch to. It's effectively
> equivalent to requiring sysvinit support for all packages indefinitely,
> and if we
Cameron Norman writes:
> This is not really what I was interested in. I want a package for each
> init system (init-systemd, init-upstart, etc.) that uses something like
> init-select (under the hood) to prompt the user to change the init
> system. This will allow packages to depend on a certain
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Saturday, February 01, 2014 19:14:21 Cameron Norman wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
> > > if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a s
On Saturday, February 01, 2014 19:14:21 Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
> > if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
> > currently running sysvinit suddenly resulted in run
19 matches
Mail list logo
