On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Quoting Steve Langasek (2022-09-09 07:09:32)
> > My feedback to you on IRC was that I think it's inappropriate for you to go
> > package-by-package in the BTS to the packages in
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 09/09/2022 19:45, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On Thu 08 Sep 2022 at 10:09PM -07, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > For the record I do not consider this an override requiring a
> > > supermajor
t;in pam.
> Since I am requesting a maintainer override, a super majority is
> required.
For the record I do not consider this an override requiring a
supermajority and would abide by a majority TC decision.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free O
er, the Technical Committee exists as a decision-making body of last
resort, when consensus is not possible (because two parties have
incompatible goals, or because discussion is not converging on agreement
fast enough to matter).
Do you believe that Debian should not have such a d
n, but it is not Debian; Debian is not
responsible for bugs in Sparky. You will need to contact them for support,
as Don indicated.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Dev
C that don't match
reality, that seems worth addressing.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp:/
rs is right.
So I don't think this is a constructive subthread.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga
e Technical Committee is never going to be a great way to write policy
because of the process involved, but the preferred method of using
debian-policy@lists for this didn't work either in this case.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Deve
ing any problems for the existing desktop environments.
Have I overlooked something that makes this approach untenable? Should the
ballot option be extended to make this a more explicit recommendation?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long eno
n
based on your earlier work that seems to have broad support.
741573_menu_systems/keithp_draft.txt includes further guidance regarding the
technical details of how to map between the menu system and .desktop files.
Since this is not on the ballot itself, how do we intend to surface this so
that it
C has not found
consensus that the process should be proofed against procedural abuses
(which I still consider the call for votes on the init system to have been,
regardless of whether there was any malicious intent).
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and
Apologies for the previous subject, this is a request to reschedule the TC
BoF, *not* the SPI BoF :)
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> During today's TC meeting, the topic of the TC BoF at DebConf15 was brought
> up. This gave me occasion to loo
am
leaving Heidelberg the morning of the 19th.
Would it be possible to move this BoF on the schedule to earlier in the
week?
FWIW I've added the TC members I know to be in attendance at DC15 to the
event in summit.debconf.org, which will hopefully help finding a suitable
time.
Thanks,
--
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:08:27AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I here-by call for a vote on the following text (option A); the other
> option is FD.
I vote A > FD.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to
e on the TC votes:
> === BEGIN
> The Technical Committee Chairman should be:
> A: Don Armstrong
> B: Andreas Barth
> C: Steve Langasek
> D: Keith Packard
> E: Didier Raboud
> F: Tollef Fog Heen
> G: Sam Hartman
> == END
I vote A > BD
> F: Further Discussion
> ===END
I vote E F
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> > warranted from my side. I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> > ar
happy for this to be called to a vote if you
are.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debia
ra space used up in the line
by changing from a one-character suffix to a two-character suffix in each of
the columns. I think it's appropriate for the Debian maintainer and the
coreutils upstream to do their own analysis of the cost/benefit tradeoff
here, without the TC presuming to meddl
gt; output when asked for IEC output (2^10).
> The CTTE declines to override the decision of the maintainer and
> upstream.
> ==END==
> Please vote [A] for Decline to override, and [FD] for Further
> Discussion.
I vote A, FD.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever lo
0).
> The CTTE declines to override the decision of the maintainer and
> upstream.
> ==END==
> I suspect the options to be [A] Decline to override and [FD]. Does
> anyone object to proceeding? [If there are no objections from CTTE
> members or DDs, I will call for votes in 48
steps to address that, even if that means
unfreezing the installer.
I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is the
right solution here; I don't think that it is. But I also don't think that
the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.
--
Steve
o so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a
maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that
maintainer.
Whereas you, on the other hand, are way out of line with your comment.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian D
usiness over the past two years, I categorically reject this
characterization that only two people are doing the work of the committee.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu D
ouraging
developers to spend their time trying to come up with a technical
implementation of the same.
I vote FD, Y.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
appears to be a duplicate of bug #757348, or bug #756076 which was marked
*resolved* on September 10 and was reopened, with a subsequent history that
in no way explains why it's been marked as "grave"?
Regardless, "I don't think the RC bugs will be fixed" is
specific (sub-)thread where switching the default was proposed. But Russ
and others have said they don't want this done automatically on upgrade
without notification to the user.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Devel
eady been dealt with accordingly. But it
wasn't theoretical.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp:/
driving
the systemd transition in at least some cases (and it is), *there would be
no reason not to list systemd-shim as the first alternative*.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
> A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in
> main
> B non-free
sts that the policy editors make
Ban appropriate clarification to the policy documents.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
aped notice. However, that situation
has been evolving constructively among the related parties (apparently, an
informal comment from a member of the release team was mistaken for a
release team position, so that's now being revisited), so I don't believe
this is anything we need
me thoughts or advice I'm more
> then happy to hear it... Please just email them to me.
Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, this is the desired outcome; I'm glad
you and Adam have gotten there on your own.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Fr
t be possible for any member of the TC to ever do again what
Bdale did in that case.
Thoughts?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
> merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
> support without a compelling reason.
>
> [1] See #746715 for background.
>
> -- resolution text ends
I vote Y, FD.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian D
his up into my TC GR(s).
I don't recall seeing this discussion. I don't agree that this is a good
structural change, for similar reasons to Tollef.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
unstable, technically there was never any upstart support.
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. But that is also not the reason for me raising this issue.
--
Steve Langasek
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; u
default would not prevent Debian from supporting other init systems, I would
like to hear from those members how they think this should be addressed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
lt alternatives. We might recommend
the use of virtual packages, but should not micromanage our developers with
an outright prohibition.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
xt meeting on
> date -d'Thu May 29 17:00:00 UTC 2014'
I will be out of the country on business that week, so can't guarantee my
availability (though it will be 7pm local time, so there's at least a chance
I will be available). Thursday, May 22 would be better for me.
-
y should be, in the absence of this
consensus; and while the TC should not do detailed design work, it would
also be counterproductive to try to limit ourselves to giving all answers in
the form of a boolean.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
D
- we shouldn't
simply have desktops deciding to opt out of showing the user the software
they've chosen to install.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
* I'll
still be able to make it to the meeting but by no means guaranteed.
I don't feel the need to demand a reschedule of course, so if this time
still works for others, and I don't make it, then have a good meeting :-)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long eno
om making it
through in the future than in trying to scrub the past.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
uestion at this time
> A Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init support
> FD Further discussion
> (I have removed the proponents' names from the summary lines.)
I vote:
L > A > N > FD
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
discussed in this thread, and it's
not at all clear which are stillborn and which people think warrant carrying
forward.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu De
tly seen some reports
(via IRC) that logind-based logout is not working from GNOME in unstable,
even when running systemd as PID1. So there may be some bugs here, but I
have yet to receive any bug reports on the systemd-shim package pointing to
a problem with systemd-shim vs. systemd compati
gind 204 will be trivial. There is no
excuse at all for Debian getting the compatibility wrong in jessie. (But an
awful lot of people who seem eager to make excuses for it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:54:50AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > If the chair ranked them equally in his ballot, why should he express a
> > different preference when it comes to the casting vote?
> Oh, the obvious answer -- if the chair's pref
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
> Bdale> Steve Langasek writes:
> >> FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
> >> the chair&#x
;s casting vote is consistent
with his ballot; but let's not set a bad precedent...)
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:07:56PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 14.27:25 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > (…), what I've seen suggests that systemd integration is currently in
> > a state that would cause terrible regressions for many
with my fellow TC members early in this
process, that there was no need for me to recuse myself from the discussion.
If the Debian Developers feel that my conflict of interest has resulted in a
wrong decision being taken, they have the authority to override the TC with
a GR.
But until then, kindly
tem as tactical voting is. But this barrage of CFVs only
compounds the problem.
I do support the idea of fixing the constitution to require a minimum
discussion period on ballots for TC resolutions.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
by the TC, I think this is an
oversight that we should correct by explicitly reaching out to the porter
lists.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
us interfaces to be in place
before other software can make use of them in the distro, as a top-down,
hard and fast rule, does go beyond that.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu D
the TC to send such an easily
misinterpreted message by deciding the default without addressing the
surrounding issues.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
not yet up to the ctte to decide this.
> What I understand that Russ is now saying is that if this was
> brought to the policy team, he would refer it to ctte. As
> delegate he can decide this on his own, but it would be nice
> that the other delegates didn't disagre
n of
the full range of opinions from the TC is likely to be counterproductive; it
allows for rapid iteration on ballot options, but to little effect if those
options don't actually have consensus behind them.
So I think on-list drafting is probably best here.
--
Steve Langasek
ne myself to observing that I think it's very rude to call a vote while
other members of the committee have made it clear they are still engaged in
discussion to identify ballot options that the whole committee can support.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and
de to run in
an init-system-agnostic environment, this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing
today. More time has been wasted on this back-and-forth over whether it's
possible to make these dbus services work on top of upstart, than it took to
actually put the systemd-shim package
aintainers
find themselves blocked on this, well, it's because they should block on
it...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:44:31PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >> If you decide on the init system question first, you could just file a
> >> bug against debian-polic
roundly ignored, so I
> gave up and just voted the best order I could come up with that I think
> will result in sensible things happening in the long run, even if some of
> the options are not particularly sensible.
I suspect that in practice you and I are not actually very far
a
> bug against debian-policy and things could go their usual way.
> Alternatively, the Policy maintainers could defer this decision to the
> technical committee under 6.1.3.
The Policy maintainers are the maintainers of the policy document, they are
not "maintainers of the relevant software&quo
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
>
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:25:59PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> > 8. OT openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> > 8. VT sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is
T openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
8. VT sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
9. GR project should decide via GR
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it
ntainers without clear guidance about how to avoid fragmenting the
archive.
Since this vote will almost certainly result in a resolution passing, I
think I will need to begin drafting a follow-up resolution to address this,
under 6.1.1.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
eferring for another cycle does is leave Debian with annoying
cumbersome init scripts and unsolvable race conditions for another cycle.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Dev
x27;s discussion of init system selection for Debian.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slan
emd,
systemd-shim | systemd-sysv.
Would the GNOME maintainers be willing to upload such a change? Or would
they be ok with me NMUing gnome-settings-daemon for it?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:34:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > The above 'block' would be tantamount to an assertion that you have no
> > intention of accepting patches from maintainers of non-default init
> > systems to provide compatib
n-default init system (forcing
installation of systemd-sysv before the decision has been taken on the
default init system). As things stand today, a dependency on systemd-shim |
systemd-sysv would fix the bug for our users without forcing a change of
init system on upgrade.
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:28:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
> proposal"):
> > Thus, for me, all of the "T" variants in Ian's latest draft
> > (<21226.41292.366504.997...
on that you have no
intention of accepting patches from maintainers of non-default init systems
to provide compatibility unless forced to do so by the TC; but as you're not
a maintainer of the package, that doesn't seem relevant here.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a le
em is supported.
Thus, for me, all of the "T" variants in Ian's latest draft
(<21226.41292.366504.997...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>) rank below FD.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
ge developers would readily
> accept fixes that made their packages work for more people.
I'd like to believe this; however, the fact that bug #726763 is still open
leads me to fear otherwise.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
ve discussed the bump to v205 in Debian in rather
fuzzy terms. Is there a specific deadline by which you think this needs to
be taken into Debian (either to ensure it's stabilized for the jessie
release, or in response to requirements from reverse dependencies)? Work on
cgmanager+systemd-shi
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:59:10PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Jan 30 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
> #debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
FYI, I'm travelling this week and don't believe I'll make it to this
meeting.
--
Steve Langa
n.
I vote:
52134
for much the same procedural reasons that Ian raised.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 07:09:51PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-01-19 23:18:26 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> As you say that planned features or development could sway your opinion:
> >> are
> >> there particular featur
x27;t think
it's the TC's place to do), a softer call-out to make it clear that this is
not an endorsement of CLAs.
But perhaps this doesn't satisfy Keith's concern. (Perhaps neither wording
does.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
my opinion.
As you say that planned features or development could sway your opinion: are
there particular features that you have in mind, here? For instance,
correcting upstart's socket-based activation interface is on the upstart
roadmap in the jessie timeframe.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
think the particular points you
raise here are good ones, and I would only quibble on some of the minor
details.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
U
of
> course.
For my part I think this is generally a good idea, but I have the impression
that at least Russ would be strongly opposed to this because it's too
prescriptive. Probably not much sense in fleshing out such a resolution if
there's not a consensus for it.
--
St
tiuser, but upstart does run on kfreebsd now.
This has even been mentioned on this bug:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00258.html
While I realize there are a lot of threads to keep up with in this
discussion, it would help everyone with the task of keeping up to not have
o
g around the same init
system for all ports, unless we drop the non-Linux ports. Maybe that's an
important factor for Debian, maybe it's not; but I don't want us to be
fooled into believing the choice of init system doesn't have an impact on
whether that consolidation will happe
the GR's conclusion, rather than the TC's, to be de jure that of
> the project.
> I therefore intend to put into the drafts something along the lines I
> suggest there, unless anyone objects.
No objection; I think that's the right way to go.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
, and I'm rather certain we
aren't going to choose sysvinit.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian
s directly
from this.
There may be other failure modes if the system is rebooted partway through
the upgrade, but that's always the case, and doesn't speak against declaring
a dependency on an init system.
Separately, I don't agree that it's actually hard to support logind on
inely new technical arguments. I don't think that adding
to the TC's incoming mail load is going to help the process of reaching a
sound decision.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can mov
FCE4 than GNOME these days.
> As their maintainers have stated, Xfce4 and KDE are most likely going to
> require systemd soon.
There has been no such statement from the XFCE maintainers in this
discussion.
And all such statements are mere parroting of systemd upstream propaganda.
The interfaces th
ng-term.)
Though the differences in the choice of packaging VCS make it awkward to do
a per-patch comparison between the Debian and Ubuntu packages, from what I
see there is only one outstanding Ubuntu patch required to make logind v204
runnable without PID1 in Debian.
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 11:08:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:40:54PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> I'd prefer to leave it in. Upstream's opinions aside, systemd is free
> >> software and if someone
That has already been resolved in unstable, with the split of sysvinit
contents out of the Essential: yes sysvinit into sysvinit-core. (A
necessary precondition for switching to either systemd-sysv or upstart for
jessie.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Fre
ly unlikely for jessie", then it doesn't seem to me like
something that the TC should be telling porters they "should" do.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
doing a comparative analysis for purposes of improving upstart, not to
evaluate systemd for adoption, so having identified a critical problem I
didn't dig very much farther to determine if this was fixable within the
constraints of systemd's dependency system.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langase
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:52:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > Upstart (as implemented in Ubuntu) restores this guarantee (with
> > provisions for failsafe booting in the case of a wrong network config),
> > and it takes advantage of upstart&#x
1 - 100 of 426 matches
Mail list logo
