Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
> init systems"):
> > I do think there is still something for the TC to do here. As Andi
> > writes, the TC failed to clarify that we expect people to continue to
>
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init
systems"):
> I do think there is still something for the TC to do here. As Andi
> writes, the TC failed to clarify that we expect people to continue to
> support multiple init systems. Evidently
Daniel Baumann writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
init systems"):
> 1. syslinux [etc.]
> lxc [etc]
Daniel, I appreciate that you feel the need to rebut the criticisms
that have been made of you. I don't think that's unreasonable. But,
I t
On 05/06/2014 11:11 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> For instance, to date, we still don't have a newer syslinux in unstable
> while he was eager to push syslinux 5 in unstable during the former
> freeze
1. syslinux 6 prior 6.02 was not usable because the efi things caused
regressions in the non-efi b
Cameron Norman writes:
> From your other message I was under the impression that you thought it
> was ok to remove Upstart support, but now you agree that if there was
> interest, then it should be kept (as long as it does not cause
> issues).
Under the circumstances, I don't think we should
El Tue, 6 de May 2014 a las 8:41 PM, Bdale Garbee
escribió:
Russ Allbery writes:
I can see your point that the future of upstart is possibly
unclear, but
my feeling is that if anyone filed a bug against a package
requesting
upstart support, that's sufficient indication of interest to merg
Russ Allbery writes:
> I can see your point that the future of upstart is possibly unclear, but
> my feeling is that if anyone filed a bug against a package requesting
> upstart support, that's sufficient indication of interest to merge upstart
> support patches, including this sort of minor modi
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
> init systems"):
>> On what grounds do you think it was a mistake? As soon as someone talked
>> to the maintainer in question and asked them to re-add support, suppo
El Tue, 6 de May 2014 a las 7:54 PM, Russ Allbery
escribió:
Faidon Liambotis writes:
I haven't gotten any such bug reports, so this is still
theoretical, but
I think I'd simply reject anything more complicated than simply
adding a
debian/foo.upstart file to the tree, including adding (and
Faidon Liambotis writes:
> I haven't gotten any such bug reports, so this is still theoretical, but
> I think I'd simply reject anything more complicated than simply adding a
> debian/foo.upstart file to the tree, including adding (and maintaining)
> hacks or modifying existing SysV init scripts.
On 05/06/14 23:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
support without a compelling reason.
Considering:
- The technical c
Ian Jackson writes:
> If the TC had said something earlier, to set the right expectations, the
> problem would probably have never been introduced in the first place.
I will reiterate a maxim from Policy work that applies here as well: it is
not our job to prevent every bug from ever existing.
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
init systems"):
> On what grounds do you think it was a mistake? As soon as someone talked
> to the maintainer in question and asked them to re-add support, support
> was almost immediately re-added.
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:15:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote
> on init systems"):
> > Is there still anything left to discuss on tftp-hpa/upstart or could
> > this issue be closed? The last
Ian Jackson writes:
> I do think there is still something for the TC to do here. As Andi
> writes, the TC failed to clarify that we expect people to continue to
> support multiple init systems. Evidently this was a mistake.
On what grounds do you think it was a mistake? As soon as someone tal
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
init systems"):
> Is there still anything left to discuss on tftp-hpa/upstart or could
> this issue be closed? The last upload restored support for upstart[1].
> [1] <http://packages.qa.debi
Hi,
Ian Jackson writes:
> Can we stop the general commentary on Daniel Baumann's performance as
> maintainer ? I don't think it's helpful or relevant to the discussion
> about tftp-hpa and upstart.
Is there still anything left to discuss on tftp-hpa/upstart or could
this issue be closed? The la
Thanks Ian, this is exactly what I think as well, and you expressed it a
way better than I would have.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Mehdi Dogguy writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
init systems"):
> Well, Raphael is not Daniel's friend... fine. But, actually, who
> cares? The maintainer should go over those details and simply does
> his job. What raphael is trying to expl
Le 2014-05-06 13:06, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
I believe he is unfriendly with unfriendly people, and I don't think
you
count as one of his friend, given the way you've interacted with him
in
the past.
Well, Raphael is not Daniel's friend... fine. But, actually, who cares?
The
maintainer s
On 05/06/2014 05:11 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't believe that he is intentionnally uncooperative but he makes it
> difficult to cooperate with him unless you agree with him on everything.
I don't think this has to do with agreeing with him or not.
I believe he is unfriendly with unfriendl
On Tue, 06 May 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yes, and I think it was wrong that the bug was closed by an upload to
> > experimental instead of to unstable when there was nothing
> > experimental about it.
>
> Daniel is just being extra careful, using experimental a bit m
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, and I think it was wrong that the bug was closed by an upload to
> experimental instead of to unstable when there was nothing
> experimental about it.
Daniel is just being extra careful, using experimental a bit more these
days, to avoid the more discontentment (I don
Hi Daniel,
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:31:38AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well
> that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and
> offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little
>
Le samedi 03 mai 2014 à 10:31 +0200, Daniel Baumann a écrit :
> first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well
> that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and
> offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little
> glitch.
Wild g
On 3 May 2014 09:31, Daniel Baumann
wrote:
> Steve,
>
> first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well
> that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and
> offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little
> glitch.
>
> seccond, i
On 05/03/2014 10:05 AM, Andreas Barth wrote:
> if we think about overruling him, there might be better
> uses for.
such as?
i'm not aware of anything that would displease you in my packages, let
alone anything that would require to 'overrule' me. in the absence of
any bug report from you against
Ian Jackson :
> I have CC'd the packages@address for the package.
jftr, you haven't (tftpa-...@packages.debian.org !=
tftp-...@packages.debian.org).
but i have seen the bug by chance today when checking the ctte mailing
list in my inbox, so i guess no harm done/time lost.
--
Address:Dan
Bdale Garbee (2014-05-02):
> However, since this is in experimental, and not in a released tree or
> release candidate, this particular case is hard for me to get worked
> up about.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tftp-hpa.html has the timeline for the
last few dozens uploads.
Last items are:
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140503 01:54]:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > Package: tech-ctte
> >
> > An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to my
> > attention:
> >
> > tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
> >
> >* Removing upstart hacks, they are
Steve,
first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well
that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and
offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little
glitch.
seccond, if you feel that deeply about that particular patch[1] and
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:50:51PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > Package: tech-ctte
> >
> > An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to my
> > attention:
> >
> > tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
> >
> >* Removing upstart h
Steve Langasek writes:
> Package: tech-ctte
>
> An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to my
> attention:
>
> tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
>
>* Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now.
>
> Since various members of the Tech
El Fri, 2 de May 2014 a las 3:01 PM, Ian Jackson
escribió:
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC
vote on init systems"):
Steve Langasek writes:
> An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog
entry to
> my attention:
>
Ian Jackson (2014-05-02):
> (It appears that archive.debian.org doesn't keep snapshots of
> experimental so it isn't easy to see exactly what was done.)
You probably want:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/tftp-hpa/
Packages are easily downloaded this way:
debsnap -d . tftp-hpa 5.2-8
debs
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
init systems"):
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to
> > my attention:
>
> > tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=l
Steve Langasek writes:
> An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to
> my attention:
> tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
>
>* Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now.
> Since various members of the Technical Committee argued th
Package: tech-ctte
An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to my
attention:
tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
* Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now.
Since various members of the Technical Committee argued that choosing a
def
38 matches
Mail list logo
