Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:18:09AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>>...
>> > == version "multiple" only ==
>> >
>> >2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
>> > foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
>> > and code
❦ 28 janvier 2014 07:23 CET, Adrian Bunk :
> You are forgetting the best technical solution, which is what
> gnome-session is actually implementing at the moment:
>
> session_tracking="systemd (with fallback to ConsoleKit)" [1]
Sure, the best technical solution is to rely on an unmaintained
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:40:01AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> [1] That's ignoring the possibility that a non-systemd logind
> replacement with sufficient functionality for all software following
> the latest logind features might show up one day - but
>,,,
Please ignore this part o
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:54:13PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> > foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
> > and code remain healthy. No
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:18:09AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>...
> > == version "multiple" only ==
> >
> >2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> > foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
> > and code remain healthy. Nothing outs
]] Chris Knadle
> I'll just mention that the proposal of switching out the default init system
> in jessie+1 sounds a bit scary, as it will change a basic administration
> interface in the middle of a Stable support period. Probably the most
> interesting scenarios with this involve servers r
On Monday, January 27, 2014 18:52:45 Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Bdale Garbee writes:
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> >> I hereby propose the following resolution:
> >> 1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
> >>
> >> about the init system question(s) to stand in the fa
Bdale Garbee writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>>
>> 1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
>> about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
>> contrary view expressed by a majority of the Develope
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
> and code remain healthy. Nothing outside of an init system's
> implementation may require a sp
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I think we should break the bigger question into this question plus
> additional advice for transition after we resolve this issue, but for me
> to vote things above FD, we should allow for a simple majority GR to
> vacate this decision.
Here is a first
I've been asked by a couple of people for my thoughts on how the upstart
CLA has impacted my position about the default init system for Debian.
I think it's pretty clear the upstart CLA was the most damaging at the
very start of the project. As Kay and Lennart have intimated elsewhere,
the upstar
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> It's unclear what the best approach is to do that. Can/should I
> terminate the vote prematurely, or does it have to run to conclusion?
Under A.4., the proposer of a resolution can withdraw it. It remains
withdrawn, unless someone else comes forward to pr
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Keith Packard wrote:
> Don - with your deeper experience in this process, can you help me
> understand how this particular issue needs to be handled differently
> From previous issues brought to the committee?
I personally think that a simple majority should be able to overrid
Hi,
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
> proposal"):
>> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>>
>>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
> I hereby propose and accept an amendment to add a new rubric paragraph
>
Anthony Towns writes:
> On 28 January 2014 08:44, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> It's unclear what the best approach is to do that. Can/should I
>> terminate the vote prematurely, or does it have to run to conclusion?
> I don't think you can unilaterally terminate a vote, but the vote can
> end early
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:00:40AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Therefore, I call for votes on the following ballot. If any of you feel
> that this is the wrong way to proceed, feel free to vote further discussion
> above all other options. I would appreciate votes from all TC members
> on this
On 28 January 2014 08:44, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> It's unclear what the best approach is to do that. Can/should I
> terminate the vote prematurely, or does it have to run to conclusion?
I don't think you can unilaterally terminate a vote, but the vote can
end early if "the
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
> and code remain healthy. Noth
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
> 1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
> about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
> contrary view expressed by a majority of the Developers in a
> General Resolut
Don Armstrong writes:
> I think we should break the bigger question into this question plus
> additional advice for transition after we resolve this issue, but for me
> to vote things above FD, we should allow for a simple majority GR to
> vacate this decision.
On one hand, we place great faith
Don Armstrong writes:
> I think we should break the bigger question into this question plus
> additional advice for transition after we resolve this issue, but for me
> to vote things above FD, we should allow for a simple majority GR to
> vacate this decision.
Ok, you and Ian clearly both feel
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be
>
> 1. systemd
>
> 2. upstart
>
> 3. openrc
>
> 4. sysvinit (no change)
>
> 5. requires further discussion.
I vote 5 (4=3=2=1).
I think we should break the bigge
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:30:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a first
> > step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the context of
> > this question. Bu
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
I hereby propose and accept an amendment to add a new rubric paragraph
0, and I also propose and do NOT accep
Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 17:48 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal
> resolution proposal"):
> > Since this resolution would override the will of each maintainer to make
> > his package depend on whatever init system the software de
Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 16:59 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I hereby propose the following resolution:
> >
> >1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
> >
> >2. Debian intends to s
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>>>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
>>> foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
>>> and code remain healthy. Nothing outside of an init system's
>>> implementation may require a sp
Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 16:59 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communi
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
I agree with this in principle, but I think this loses quite a bit of
nuance and is likely, phrased in that way, to be used as a stick to beat
maintainers with in ways that aren
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Yeah, I would prefer that as well. I should have brought it up before I
>> responded with my vote.
> You are entitled to change your vote. I encourage you to do so.
I think it would be ideal to be clear about the GR issue from the start,
but I thi
Colin Watson writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a first
> > step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the context of
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> Yeah, I would prefer that as well. I should have brought it up before I
> responded with my vote.
You are entitled to change your vote. I encourage you to do so.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
Colin Watson writes:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a
>> first step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the
>> context of this question. But I see your point, and would certainly
>>
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I hereby propose the following resolution:
> >1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
> I agree with this in principle, but I think this loses quite a bit of
> nuance a
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a first
> step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the context of
> this question. But I see your point, and would certainly have been
> willing to include
Ian Jackson writes ("multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):
> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>
>1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
>
>2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> foreseeable future, and so long as their respec
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy. Nothing outside of an init system's
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
contrary view expressed by a majority of the Developers in a
General Resolution.
2. Accordingly, all TC de
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> For the same reason that I didn't include the GR over-ride. I don't
> think of this as the final word on the issue.
I find this deeply unconvincing. I am very disappointed that you
haven't changed your mind on
Ian Jackson writes:
> Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for
> jessie"):
>> I've spent much of the last few days pondering the current state
>> of the TC's init system debate, and what our next step(s) should be.
>
> Also, why have you not send this to the bug repo
Ian Jackson writes:
> I thought we had agreed that the TC resolution would explicitly state
> that it would be overrideable by a simple majority.
>
> None of Bdale's options do that. Doing this with a later resolution
> which might or might not pass the TC is IMO unacceptable.
>
> I hope this om
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> I've spent much of the last few days pondering the current state
> of the TC's init system debate, and what our next step(s) should be.
Also, why have you not send this to the bug report ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> I propose we take the simplest possible "next step". [...]
...
> Therefore, I call for votes on the following ballot.
Bdale, I am really quite upset by this. Not because you have
pre-empted my own draft - you're qu
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> I think there's general consensus in the TC that a GR overriding this
> decision should be done with a simple majority (at least among the people
> who have commented). If a GR goes forward, I'll propose that th
44 matches
Mail list logo
