Andreas Barth writes:
> * Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
>> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
>> >
System V is NOT hard to "maintain"
The scripts were written YEARS ago. They're fine. They do NOT need to be
changed.
Debian SysV has concurrent boot aswell.
Systemd is a poison apple. 200k lines of unaudited root privlege code. A
consulting
service to go along with this new _operating system_
"Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine"
"this is becoming a popular point of view."
"
"Cheers,"
" Paul"
Says the systemd camp, which uses politics in every fight it wages
(and it usually wins). Using the tech-ctte to change the OS in a
fundamental way itself
Yes, by all means we should ignore the fake personas, Mr. Natural Linux,
whoever you are.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Natural Linux wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses given
> in the article?
>
> The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.
>
Steve Langasek, go fuck yourself.I don't know what software your write other than upstart.I just know that I like to have a stable base when I'm working on my code,or constructing my virtual architecture.Debian was that stable base. It wasn't redhat.I am not going to tell you what software and proj
Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses givenin the article?The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.Now it suddenly is.Furthermore gnome stole libgtk from the gimp project recentlyand then they made an incompatable "libgtk" 3.0.And now they're requiring all t
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0800, NoTo CTTE wrote:
> Four people get to decide what operating system debian is.
> Four. And we have to accept that for some reason.
Debian developers don't have to accept it; they can pass a GR choosing a
different default if they think that systemd is the w
*Plonk*.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Russ Allbery:
> In other words, I'm advocating the same position that we have right now
> for translations: the package maintainer is not expected to translate
> their package to other languages, but they are expected to incorporate
> translations as they are made available. The translators b
"Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine"
"this is becoming a popular point of view."
"
"Cheers,"
" Paul"
Says the systemd camp, which uses politics in every fight it wages
(and it usually wins). Using the tech-ctte to change the OS in a
fundamental way itself
Russ Allbery writes:
> We all want there to be multiple implementations of standard, reasonable
> APIs so that we can choose software based on its merits and not because
> it's the only implementation of a useful interface. We also all live in
> the real world where that doesn't always happen.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:22:14PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> > > I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
> > > any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manne
On 02/03/14 at 13:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > While I don't think there's any question that FFIS should be one of Debian's
> > TOs, I think having the answers to these questions is important in order to
> > protect both parties, so that
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Russ Allbery
>
> > Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> > I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
> > any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
> > individual deve
Matthew Vernon writes:
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call for
> seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
> likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly to
> a vote so that the project can state its mind on this
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:42:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think you're overreacting.
After some cool-off, I agree.
DAM, please disregard my messages. Sorry.
I'm still displeased at the reading of the language, but it's clear this isn't
a blatent abuse.
Sorry, Ian. I overreated.
Cheers,
]] Russ Allbery
(Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)
> Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
> any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
> individual developers
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:16:57AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision
>> at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the
>> default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to
* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
> The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
>
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > […]
> > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> > resolutions:
> >
> > 11th Feb as m
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> >
> >The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
> >about whether software may
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 1. the proposed GR doesn't overturn TCs decision about the default
> Linux init system, but holds that one up and adds something about
> loose coupling of init systems and packages[1]
The fact it has to be stated explicitly is insane
The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> […]
> That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> resolutions:
>
> 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
> Colin Watson writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
> >> > text
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
> > overturn it.
>
> The fact t
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:16:57AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision
> at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the
> default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to invoke the GR
> clause in that
Colin Watson writes:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
>> > text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default,
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
> GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
> overturn it.
The fact there's a backdoor that was inserted that allowed him to
overturn the
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
> > text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default, and
> > adds to it.
[...]
>
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you're going to say we need to replace "the TC resolution is
> > > amended" w
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> > How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> > decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I understand your point. But it feels to me like an abuse of the
> > CTs decision because it's on a related but different subject. I
> > would prefer that it would just make a position statement that
> > doesn't have an effect on th
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
> default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
> doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
> having a decision about the default.
I think given my current text says "T
Hi,
Stuart Prescott writes:
> Your rationale does not explain how the normal policy process has failed to
> deliver the outcomes required by the project. I think the project should
Sorry about that; I rather thought that the TC failing to rule on the
issue was failing to provide clarity on th
Andreas Barth writes:
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> clause and keep the current decision (because that is also wh
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> >
> >The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
> >about whether software may
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> There is also this decision of the CTTE:
>
>The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
>about whether software may require specific init systems.
>
> Which doesn't have this GR rider text
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Putting the "notes and rubric" section first might make this clearer
> > > for y
He has a right to call a GR.
You are trying your hardest to make sure systemd is the
only choice for all linux systems, all major linux distros,
and if we don't like it we can "go use MacOSX or BSD" or
"roll your own distro".
The fact is that SysV works NOW. The scripts work and
are stable and ar
He has a right to call a GR.You are trying your hardest to make sure systemd is theonly choice for all linux systems, all major linux distros,and if we don't like it we can "go use MacOSX or BSD" or"roll your own distro".The fact is that SysV works NOW. The scripts work and are stable and are FINE.
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Putting the "notes and rubric" section first might make this clearer
> > for you to see, but it would make the whole GR text much less clear to
> > r
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > This a GR proposal is a "position statement about issues of the day"
> > > (as i
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This a GR proposal is a "position statement about issues of the day"
> > (as it says in the "Notes and rubric".) It's on the subject of init
> > sys
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> This a GR proposal is a "position statement about issues of the day"
> (as it says in the "Notes and rubric".) It's on the subject of init
> systems. Therefore it is covered by this wording.
But it also says:
1. Exercise of the TC
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you're going to say we need to replace "the TC resolution is
> > amended" with something like "we wish that instead the TC had decided
> > blah",
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:06:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140302 13:07]:
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> clause and keep the current decision
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choic
Hi,
Le 01/03/2014 00:45, Matthew Vernon a écrit :
> 2. Loose coupling of init systems
>
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
> pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
>
>* alternative init system implementations
>* special-use packages such as ma
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> > > systems"):
> > > > This is probably go
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> > systems"):
> > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > written.
> >
> > Do y
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > written.
>
> Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiri
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> written.
Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a
1:1 majority ? If so, can you please say how.
If you're going to s
52 matches
Mail list logo
