Cntrl: retitle -1 Please clarify that sysvinit support decision depends on
available sysvinit resources
Writing "Control:" without 'o' was on purpose.
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:03:48 +0200, Odyx wrote:
}... many wise words in an overheated thread ...
> It's not OKay for maintainers to preempt
Le vendredi, 26 août 2016, 12.55:56 h CEST Ian Jackson a écrit :
> There has recently been a thread on debian-devel ("Is missing
> SysV-init support a bug?) about the decision by a package maintainer
> to drop sysvinit support from their package. The maintainer has said
> they are reconsidering, w
Christian Seiler schreef op 28-08-2016 10:07:
... warehouse of troubles that need a million hours of employment
each year to keep it going ...
- you will hate the day when you discover you've been scammed ...
Or, when other people constantly and irrationally bring up
libsystemd0 again and agai
On 08/28/2016 08:37 AM, Bart Schouten wrote:
> Sam Hartman schreef op 28-08-2016 1:37:
>> Similarly, if the community of people who care about sysvinit is
>> unwilling to spend the time keeping it working, eventually sysvinit
>> as a whole will be unmaintained and buggy.
>
> True, but I don't th
]] Bart Schouten
> > I agree on this too. To the extent it should be considered
> > time-limited, it should be «until N releases after sysvinit is
> > removed» or somesuch, if that happens.
>
> In legal terms, in law, it would be considered that the burden of
> proof lies with those who want to
Sam Hartman schreef op 28-08-2016 1:37:
I'm nervous of going too far down the path of legalisms.
Asking those who need the scripts to prove (or even say) they still
need
them is not what we want.
However if someone is having difficulty maintaining the scripts or they
are broken, it is reason
> "Bart" == Bart Schouten writes:
>> I agree on this too. To the extent it should be considered
>> time-limited, it should be «until N releases after sysvinit is
>> removed» or somesuch, if that happens.
Bart> In legal terms, in law, it would be considered that the burden
I agree on this too. To the extent it should be considered
time-limited, it should be «until N releases after sysvinit is removed»
or somesuch, if that happens.
In legal terms, in law, it would be considered that the burden of proof
lies with those who want to remove it.
Asking the supporter
]] Josh Triplett
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:14:25 +0100 Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit
> > support decision is not going to expire"):
> > > I don't want to make a blanket statement that it&#
Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support
decision is not going to expire"):
> Maybe sysvinit users (and advocates) could answer to the current RFA on
> src:sysvinit (#811377). None of the people who volunteered half a year
> ago seemed
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:05:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The reaction to every single instance of someone finding it a pain to
> maintain sysvinit support should not be "as a reminder, the TC has a
> giant hammer and will hit you with it". The reaction should be "are
> there people willing
❦ 26 août 2016 15:14 CEST, Ian Jackson :
> Otherwise sysvinit users (and advocates) have to have tiresome
> discussions one package at a time - discussions where the maintainer
> inevitably starts repeating the claims that sysvinit is obsolete and
> should be thrown away now.
Maybe sysvinit use
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:14:25 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support
> decision is not going to expire"):
> > I don't want to make a blanket statement that it's a bug not to include
> > an init s
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:55:56 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> So: would the TC please clarify that the decision that
>
> For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
> the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
> merging reasonable contributions, and
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 12:38 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar Burchardt writes:
>
> Ansgar> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:50:13 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> I think we want to reaffirm that policy section 9.3.2 and
> section
> Ansgar> 9.3.3
> >> represent current policy for
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar Burchardt writes:
Ansgar> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:50:13 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I think we want to reaffirm that policy section 9.3.2 and section
Ansgar> 9.3.3
>> represent current policy for init scripts, quoting particularly
>> the following text
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:50:13 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think we want to reaffirm that policy section 9.3.2 and section
9.3.3
> represent current policy for init scripts, quoting particularly the
> following text from section 9.3.2:
>
> Packages that include daemons for system services shou
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:14:25 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support
> decision is not going to expire"):
> > Ian, quick question for you because you might know the answer off the
> > top of your head
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support
decision is not going to expire"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > I am running stretch with sysvinit on my laptop. It seems to
> > work for me. I haven't conducted any kind of systematic
> > surv
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that
Ian> sysvinit support decision is not going to expire"):
>> Ian, quick question for you because you might know the answer off
>> the top of your head. Does running stretch with sysvin
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support
decision is not going to expire"):
> Ian, quick question for you because you might know the answer off the
> top of your head. Does running stretch with sysvinit as your init
> system work reasonably wel
Ian, quick question for you because you might know the answer off the
top of your head. Does running stretch with sysvinit as your init
system work reasonably well, or at least work well enough that there are
a small number of bugs we will likely be able to fix in the stretch time
frame? What I
Package: tech-ctte
There has recently been a thread on debian-devel ("Is missing
SysV-init support a bug?) about the decision by a package maintainer
to drop sysvinit support from their package. The maintainer has said
they are reconsidering, which is good.
But, the discussion on -devel has show
23 matches
Mail list logo
