On 19/01/14 03:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> In general, I've been quite unhappy with the excessive invocation of
>> the TC recently, with developers seeming to view this as a first,
>> rather than absolute last, resort.
> [...]
>
> Constitutionally, a GR is the last resort in that it can overrule
]] Daniel Pocock
> E.g. if we choose systemd, who will implement all the things that need
> to be changed outside the Gnome related packages? What will immediately
> fail if not adapted to systemd?
In general, nothing should fail. sysvinit scripts are first class
citizens in the systemd world
On 13461 March 1977, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate
Quite the contrary, it was the right thing to do. This issue will not
get any easier or more clearcut the longer we let it wait and see if
maybe the maint
Guillem Jover writes ("GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate, [...]
Perhaps surprisingly, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a GR
for this question.
My reasons are quite differ
I was going to write something longer about this, and I may still
depending on whether I feel like I have a useful way to present the
thoughts that are mingling in my head. But I wanted to at least briefly
support Ian's point about a GR possibly being a more appropriate
decision-making process if
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I do think that the proper process is for the TC to make a decision at
> > this stage. The way I read the constitution and the context is that it
> > is the TC's job. Evidently you disagree.
Hi,
dropping the useless cc: and not commenting on the thread topic at all so far
yet...
On Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project
> > to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
> I agree. I thin
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:04:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
> that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
> technical ones.
I would gladly vote an option that says: "technically, we trust what the
T
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> A constructive thing that we may do as a project to address the
> political side of the matter, is to add to our technical decision a list
> of things that we wish our upstreams would do to make all our lives
> easier in
Hi Guillem,
I think you are missing the following options and have only listed options
which you consider sensible or which you loath:
h.) support them all equally: systemd, upstart, sysv and openrc and keep sysv
as the default
i.) support them all equally: systemd, upstart, sysv and openrc an
Hi Steve!
On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 19:16:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem
> > to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their
> > solutions within Debi
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:32:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> And yes, when I mentioned "seeking wide deployment", I meant archive
> wide support. Let me try to give an analogy to clarify what I mean.
> Say, the GNU/kFooBar porters might have invested lots of effort into
> their kernel, toolchai
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:36:25AM +0100]:
> Where do they decide the global direction for the project? They have a
> technical decision to do. Sure it has a wide impact, but global
> direction is something different than "just" an init thingie.
>
>
> Also, seeing how much involv
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 02:53:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> dropping the useless cc: and not commenting on the thread topic at all so
> far yet...
> On Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project
> > > to overturn
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project
>>> to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
>> I agree. I think that would be quite bad.
> care to explain why you think so?
Hi Ian!
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:04:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> > I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> > premature and inappropriate, [...]
>
> Perhaps surprisingly, I am not entirely
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> care to explain why you think so?
Russ has given an answer which I agree with.
But more fundamentally for me: if the project as a whole votes to
overrule the TC on this question, but by a constitutionally
insufficien
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:04:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
> > that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
> > technical
Hi Enrico!
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 14:56:27 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:04:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
> > that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
> > technical ones.
Guillem Jover writes:
> But as it stands I think I'm a bit conflicted here, on one hand the
> whole point of the GR is because I don't agree the TC should be
> _deciding_ on this, the project should, but on the other I acknowledge
> there's people that for whatever reason want to defer to the TC.
20 matches
Mail list logo
