Hi Steve,
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 13.07:54 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Here's what I think is the right technical policy, that we should be
> addressing with this resolution.
>
> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
>interfaces (i.e., init scripts in /etc/
Hi,
Thank you both for inviting comments on this from a porter's POV.
Steve Langasek writes:
>> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
>>interfaces (i.e., init scripts in /etc/init.d).
This would be greatly reassuring; if adopting systemd, this is IMHO the
pr
]] Adrian Bunk
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:38:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >...
> > I don't see any reason why,
> > say, mountall or socklog-run should be required to support sysvinit.
> >...
>
> What about udev?
We will continue supporting udev at the current level for the jessie
release
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:38:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> I don't see any reason why,
> say, mountall or socklog-run should be required to support sysvinit.
>...
What about udev?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness.
Colin Watson writes:
> I do think it's bizarre that we seem to have ended up with coupling
> options that don't treat the default init system differently. This
> makes no sense to me, for *either* T or L. Unfortunately I was severely
> backlogged at the point when this was being thrashed out, a
Russ Allbery writes:
> The Technical Committee offers no advice at this time on requirements
> or package dependencies on specific init systems after the jessie
> release. There are too many variables at this point to know what the
Sorry, cut and paste error. The entire intended pa
Steve Langasek writes:
> So to make my position clear: L does not accurately reflect what I
> think we should be doing; but given the option between L and T, I was
> willing to vote L above FD and was not willing to vote T above FD
> because I think T unambiguously sets the stage for all other i
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:17:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 8 February 2014 18:26, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>...
> > I'd actually call it a bug in the voting system that the casting vote
> > might decide between an option that 3
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have added the following texts to the drafts in git:
> >
> > + == introduction (all versions except GR) ==
> >
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Here's what I think is the right technical policy, that we should be
> addressing with this resolution.
>
> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
>
On 8 February 2014 18:26, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> I'd consider that tactical voting. Basically, I think the value in the
>> FD option is to be able to say "this option has not been fully baked,
>> and more discussion would be helpful t
Quoting: Steve Langasek
> So to make my position clear: L does not accurately reflect what I think we
> should be doing; but given the option between L and T, I was willing to vote
> L above FD and was not willing to vote T above FD because I think T
> unambiguously sets the stage for all other i
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bug cc dropped, replaced with -ctte.
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:29:27AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to b
Bug cc dropped, replaced with -ctte.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:29:27AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> > that aren't your favourite.
> When you are saying "a set
Colin Watson wrote:
> Part of my concern with T is that it's so mealy-mouthed. "Where
> feasible", "should", "encouraged", etc. By contrast, L is a bit
> heavy-handed. It sounds like we may share some common goals between
> these, and maybe if we want those to stick properly we need to state
> t
Keith Packard wrote:
> I believe that votes cast in the last ballot demonstrate a unanimous
> agreement that the answer for this package dependency question does not
> in any way depend on which init system is the default, and so this
> question could be resolved separately, with the question origi
Steve Langasek writes:
> So to make my position clear: L does not accurately reflect what I think we
> should be doing; but given the option between L and T, I was willing to vote
> L above FD and was not willing to vote T above FD because I think T
> unambiguously sets the stage for all other i
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
> If you have any question for -boot@, please send a mail there. If you
> want some input from either Christian or me, please cc us to ensure we
> don't miss that mail.
And, FWIW, though I *am* in some way following the -ctte list
(including the giant #7
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:25:02PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > Leaving tactical aspects aside, IMHO the important point is that there
> > is a compromise line that seems reasonable for all members of the TC:
> > For the upstart side of the TC, the most importan
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Just to be very clear here, I do believe that we're deadlocked, even
>> though I expect the resolution process to be able to spit out a
>> decision. I don't mean deadlocked in the sense that Condorcet will
>> fail, but rather deadlock in the se
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:42:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andreas Barth writes:
> > * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140207 02:09]:
>
> >> I also flatly disagree with Adrian over whether we're deadlocked. I
> >> don't see any point in discussing it, though.
>
> > I agree with you, I don'
Hi,
Russ Allbery writes:
> Just to be very clear here, I do believe that we're deadlocked, even
> though I expect the resolution process to be able to spit out a decision.
> I don't mean deadlocked in the sense that Condorcet will fail, but rather
> deadlock in the sense that the preferences abov
Andreas Barth writes:
> * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140207 02:09]:
>> I also flatly disagree with Adrian over whether we're deadlocked. I
>> don't see any point in discussing it, though.
> I agree with you, I don't see any reason why we are deadlocked. If we
> want to do yet another round
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:08:46AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I consider the L option as currently written to be a commitment to a
> > course of action that is technically broken and unsustainable. I also
> > think the effect of L is contrary to its intended goal an
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:41:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > Agreed on both counts. I understand why Ian (was it?) wanted to have
> > the "multiple init systems for the foreseeable fu
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:39:34PM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Colin Watson (2014-02-05):
> > The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
> > maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick
> > scan of the early parts of this bug are Wouter and mysel
Colin Watson (2014-02-05):
> The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
> maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick
> scan of the early parts of this bug are Wouter and myself; Tollef also
> contributed a good deal in the past, and I may have miss
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Agreed on both counts. I understand why Ian (was it?) wanted to have
> the "multiple init systems for the foreseeable future" text, as a
> statement of general intent, and I don't
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:25:02PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> L makes it less likely that Debian will support anything other than the
> default init system in the long run because it undermines the process of
> adding native configuration for non-default init systems. If we said that
> packages
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.
I have added the fol
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> [some quoted stuff]
>
> I'm a bit confused by this.
To be clear, none of the quoted text is from me.
> I find the votes expressed by TC members entirely consistent with their
> stated ver
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> It is not at all clear to me why the CTTE so desperately wants to
> automatically defer to a GR in their resolution. If there is consensus
> to defer to a GR with simple majority among the CTTE,
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init
Ian> system resolution"):
>> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block
>> options that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have
>> expected the tech
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:04:20AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I am not sure whether Colin is aware that it currently depends on him
> whether or not DT can win - and whether that might make him consider
> changing his vote.
>
> If Ian convinces Colin to change his vote to move DT from 5. to 7.
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution"):
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
> ctte to be able to come to a co
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 01.08:46 Keith Packard a écrit :
> I think a fair number of us seem to feel that the T/L notion is at
> least as important, if not more important, than the D/U/O/V decision
> as it sets a broader and longer-term precedent for the project than
> choosing which init syste
Russ Allbery writes:
> I consider the L option as currently written to be a commitment to a
> course of action that is technically broken and unsustainable. I also
> think the effect of L is contrary to its intended goal and will make it
> less likely, not more likely, that Debian will provide w
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140207 02:09]:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> > that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
> > ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals considere
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Leaving tactical aspects aside, IMHO the important point is that there
> is a compromise line that seems reasonable for all members of the TC:
> For the upstart side of the TC, the most important question is T/L.
> For the systemd side of the TC, the most important question
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD,
> > then T is dead.
>
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your f
Russ Allbery writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
>>> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
>>> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
>>> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
>>> - FD
>
>> In this case, I
Anthony Towns writes:
> It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
> ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals considered
> reasonable by all the members, and accept whatever a ma
On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD,
> then T is dead.
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
ctte to be able to come
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:20:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> This is one of the major reasons why I'm voting GR second. I see Bdale's
> point that we shouldn't abdicate our responsibility to make the best
> decision that we can, and I followed that maxim by voting my preference
> first. B
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Presuming everyone votes, where you put F only has an impact in either
>> case only if at least three other ctte members will also vote FD above
>> T or DT (given UT is irrelevant); which based on the already
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 7 February 2014 06:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> > resolution"):
> >> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the
On 7 February 2014 06:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
>> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
>> we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not goi
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
> we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not going to defeat
> any option, so their position in your vote is
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > In fact, if this was your intention all along, it's not clear at all
> > to me why we had to couple these votes.
>
> You'll n
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
> > that has the right effect, please suggest som
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Either of these options will require 2:1, though.
> >
> > Let me quote §4.1.4:
> >
> >Together, the Developers may: [...] Make or override any decision
> >authorised by the powers
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > what form of words should be used
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> >
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> > the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> >
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> the GR isn&#x
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> the GR isn't trying to override the ctte. You could for
> instance do
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:58:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
> > actually think I gave advice about this before whic
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> >> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
> >> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
> >> - B: something that does overrule
Colin Watson writes:
> I think I signed my votes when I started on the TC, but then noticed
> that nobody else was doing so and stopped bothering. I can go back to
> signing them in future, though, since it sounds like it would make some
> people more comfortable.
I just sign all of my email, a
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Changing my vote to:
>
> 1. FD further discussion
With this and Colin's change of vote, 4 TC members have ranked FD
first. The outcome is no longer in doubt: FD wins.
Ian.
--
[bug CC removed]
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:46:32AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
> > guess it's up to the secretary.)
>
> I've actually asked that they do that befor
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I hope we only have to go round this business once more!
Quite!
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
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.
> > I hereby call for votes on my previo
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:32:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
>
> I vote:
In response to the uncertainty
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > I vote:
> >
> > 1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT all
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I think what we're trying to say looks something like this:
...
> The result of that GR is A. However, the choice picked by the above
> algorithm is B. So B becomes the TC decision, despite
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:42:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/02/14 at 22:41 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
> > anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
> > to install Debian… and debootstrap
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:43:25PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Colin Watson dixit:
> >Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
> >preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as "efforts to
> >resolve [the issue] via consensus".
>
> But is not diversity s
This is silly. It's pretty clear that everybody made up their minds a
long time ago, and no matter how the resolution is worded, it will come
down systemd > upstart 5:4. The only question is on how to guide
maintainers once the init system is changed.
-Rick-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
On 6 February 2014 16:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:
> 4x UL > DL > UT > DT (steve, colin, ian, andi)
> 2x DT > DL > UT > UL (russ, don)
Ah! I thought there was something to add here
The above votes divide neatly into upstart v systemd camps. Giv
On 05/02/14 at 22:41 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Colin Watson dixit:
>
> >("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").
>
> I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
> anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
> to
Anthony Towns writes:
> GR comparisons are:
> UL > GR 5:1 (russ against)
> UT = GR 3:3 (steve, colin, don in favour; ian, andi, russ against)
> DL > GR 6:0
For whatever it's worth, I think this line is wrong. I voted GR above DL.
> DT > GR 4:2 (ian, andi against)
--
Russ Allbery (r.
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
>> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
>> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
>> - FD
> In this case, I don't know A could be anything b
On 6 February 2014 11:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
> same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
> rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
> anyway.
The votes so far ar
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
> concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
> don't object to cancelling the vote for
Ian Jackson writes:
> The only change is to rank FD first. I think we should give Steve a
> chance to draft his compromise, and also to satisfy Kurt.
> I encourage others to do likewise. If Steve and one other person
> does this then this vote too will be cancelled.
To say explicitly to avoid
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
> - FD
In this case, I don't know A could be anything but 2:1, baring riders
from the C
Ian Jackson writes:
> Options on the ballot:
> DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> UL upstart default in jessie,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:32:53AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would h
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
> guess it's up to the secretary.)
I've actually asked that they do that before, but it's not really
a requirement.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctt
On 2014-02-05 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution"):
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> > that you asked me about this before calling for vo
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
FD
I hereby change my vote:
1. FD further discussion
2. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
4. OL openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
5. VL sysvinit default in j
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:29:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who I don't
> think is on the d-i team (or if he is I hope he'll forgive me for
> observing he isn't very active).
FTR - I'm not on the d-i team, and havn't been. No worries :)
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I vote:
>
> 1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 2. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 3. FD further discu
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
> actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
> have ignored.
I'm sorry if I also missed a mail.
>
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution"):
> I am very unhappy to see this CFV in my inbox this morning.
I'm sorry about that.
> I made it known that I was not satisfied with the set of ballot
> options, and I was still in
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:28:41PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> paultag made the request while referencing 6.1.2 as the relevant
> clause. He isn't involved in d-i.
(Heyya, mgilbert! :) )
I brought it forward under that clause because it made sense at the
time, but I think the TC is free to c
Colin Watson dixit:
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html
>
>Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
>preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as "efforts to
>resolve [the issue] via consensus".
But is not diversity some sort of
Colin Watson dixit:
>("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").
I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
to install Debian… and debootstrap goes by whatever ftp-masters put
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:08:35PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The big question, I think, is whether section 6.3.6 of the
> constitution has been satisfied. The project is still clearly working
> on solutions, but at a slower pace than some may desire. See this for
> a recent example:
> https
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
2. DL systemd default in j
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As regards the default init system we are making a decision which has
> been requested of us by the people normally responsible (which would
> be the d-i maintainersI think).
The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
>> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
>> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
>>
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 6. FD further discussion
> > 7. UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> > 8. OT openrc default in jes
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Kurt Roeckx 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.
>>
>> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
