-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
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
snip
I said that if I'd not received enough seconds by today that I would
Matthew Vernon writes (Withdrawal of Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
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
snip
I said that if I'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I second the general resolution proposal below:
Kind regards, Thibaut.
Le 01/03/2014 00:45, Matthew Vernon a écrit :
Hi,
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby
call for seconds. I don't think further lengthy
Hi,
On 10/03/14 08:58, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I second the general resolution proposal below:
Thanks; with you and Iustin, I have 3 seconds now; 5 are needed for the
GR to go to a vote.
Regards,
Matthew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi Matthew,
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 this important
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:52:54AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Hi,
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org 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
snip
This has only had one
Thibaut Paumard writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I wonder whether this GR has the following corollary:
As the author of the TC text (which Matthew has simply adopted), I
think I can clarify this. What I'm about to say will come as no
surprise to anyone who
Hi,
Thibaut Paumard thib...@debian.org writes:
I am still waiting for your answer to my concerns before I make my mind
on seconding this GR:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00024.html
The problem, I think, is that the discussion was drawn onto procedural
technicalities
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:07:17PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
Consequently, any GR about init-related issues would now need to
explicity state that it upholds the CTTE's decision for the default
init system. Lacking that, passing of the GR would, as a *side-effect*
nullify the CT decision
Hi,
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Given the ambiguity about whether this GR vacates the earlier TC decision, I
think it would be best to simply include in your GR text a statement that
The Debian project reaffirms the decision of the TC to make systemd the
default init
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Sorry, Ian. I overreated.
Apology accepted. This whole business is quite difficult for
everyone and I too haven't managed to always keep my temper :-/.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
Andreas Barth writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
Nikolaus Rath writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I believe the point of contention is that Ian seems to imply that due to
the way that the wrote the GR clause, *any* GR related to init would
automatically nullify the TC's decision about the default init system
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Since, in my opinion, this question is all about how the project wants to
govern itself and how we want to handle assigning responsibility for work
I don't think this is the right way to look at it. We
Hi,
On Montag, 3. März 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
It's a false dichtonomy, we could say that GNOME doesn't work on those
platforms. That'd be sad, but it wouldn't make those platforms
unusable, nor would it make GNOME generally unusable.
It wouldn't be the first or the last time we don't
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:15:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Since, in my opinion, this question is all about how the project wants to
govern itself and how we want to handle assigning responsibility for work
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:39:40AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
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
Once again, you rant multiple lists whilst hiding who you are.
I am Zenaan Harkness. I have some (not all) strongly held views.
As an aside, I shall use systemd and have tried a few times now, but
have a technical issue or two with my setup when using systemd, which
I need to find time to solve
Ian Jackson writes:
What my TC text, as adopted in Matthew's proposal, does is to answer
the question: what happens if the work is not done ?
When you assume the work is not done then there will be packages
which do not support all init systems and depend (directly or
indirectly) on certain of
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 say
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 requiring a
1:1
* 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 you agree
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 going to require
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 managers
* 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 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
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, then please
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's
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
systems
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 it says
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
read
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
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 are
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 you to see
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 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 require
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org 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
Hi,
Stuart Prescott stu...@debian.org 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
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be 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
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 the CTs
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org 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
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 with something
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.
[...]
2)
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
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org 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
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
* 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 there's a
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org 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
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
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.
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 require
* 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 modified by
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org 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
]] 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
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,
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org 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
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no 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
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 manner to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org 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
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 bear
*Plonk*.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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
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
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_
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org 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
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Hi,
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
