Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 12.17:14 Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > > Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems
> >
> > This is actively misleading in a least four ways:
> Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about:
Your two proposals don't seem to match "Ian's" to wh
Hi,
Joey Hess:
> Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
> this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
> that's going on.
>
Well, vote them below FD then.
Except for the nice two-paragraph "we don't need no stinkin' GR" amendment
that's g
Ian Jackson writes:
> Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init
> systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>> I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
>> up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
>>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.)
>
> I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
> `directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)).
> This resets the minimum
I wholeheartedly support this proposal.
I would go further in this proposal and state that no software should require a
specific init system in ANY pid.
Of course, like many others, I would prefer Debian's default init to be almost
anything other than systemd.
In fleeing systemd, I have left D
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: GR option text on ballots"):
> > I'd like to propose:
>
> I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be
> positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as
> they are not
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:03:49PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
> this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
> that's going on.
Hear, hear.
My dayjob is doing PMO[1][2] style work tracking and modeling
On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view
> that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement
> for their packages. Finally I encourage everyone to focus on the
> connotation in Luca's amendment. It all
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Either it's a position statement, or we're making position
> statement (4.1.5), or using the TC's power (4.1.4).
>
> In #727708 it says that a position statement will replace
> "this TC resolution".
>
> In #746715 there is no such text.
>
> So the question is going to be if
> "Arno" == Arno Töll writes:
Arno> Hi Kurt,
Arno> On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
>> or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
>> more of the options into overrding the TC and
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
> > or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
> > more of the options into overrding the TC an
Hi Kurt,
On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
> or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
> more of the options into overrding the TC and put them under
> 4.1.4.
I do not follow you on this argumentation. T
> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
Joey> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
---
>>
>> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when
>> proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be
>> dis
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the
> proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will
> seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are
> happy with.
Please s
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:46:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
> > The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
> > decided:
> > > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
> > > support the multiple
On 20 October 2014 21:14, Joey Hess wrote:
> Luca Falavigna wrote:
>> The Technical Committee
>> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
>> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
>
> The tech committe made a separate ruling on this questi
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
>
> Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
> Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
> Joey> currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
> Joey> to the TC
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
>> The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
>> decided:
>>> For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
>>> support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
>>>
> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
Joey> currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
Joey> to the TC. It could implicitly or expli
Hi,
Joey Hess:
> Luca Falavigna wrote:
> > The Technical Committee
> > decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> > other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
>
> The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
> For
Hi.
I'd support a proposal that focused on reaffirming the decisions that
have already been taken, and it sort of sounds like you're doing that.
However, I think your proposal goes significantly further than I'd like.
So, I'd rank your proposal significantly below Lucas's proposal.
however, if y
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
> The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
> decided:
> > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
> > support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
> > includes merging reasonable contribu
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The technical committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
What, then was #746715?
> This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
> (Constitution 4.1.5
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed
> amendment is considered harmful, let me know).
>
Received (well, found in the middle of a mail thread, thanks for
changing the subject though :P) and va
Luca Falavigna wrote:
> The Technical Committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the record, the TC expects ma
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Dear fellow Developers,
>
> I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
> and I hereby call for seconds.
>
All received and valid.
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Luca Falavigna writes:
> ** Begin Alternative Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other
+1 keep `sysvint-core` in Debian *at a reliable level*, is a wise thing to
do. For at least, 2018~2020.
On 19 October 2014 18:40, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> >> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
> >>> On Sun, O
Charles Plessy wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
> Regarding the subjec
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:29:10)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
>>> Ian Jackson writes:
David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
> OK, so packaging
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init
systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
> I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
> up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
> yet another guy started the
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Here is the text:
>
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive r
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Dear fellow Developers,
>
> I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
> and I hereby call for seconds.
>
>
>
> ** Begin Alternative Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the Technical Comm
Charles Plessy (2014-10-19):
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
> Regarding th
Luca Falavigna (2014-10-18):
> ** Begin Alternative Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
>
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
> up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
> yet another guy started the project).
Indeed, I think uselessd is a very interesting project. I hope it
succeeds at its goa
Charles Plessy writes:
> Here is the text:
>
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcom
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
>
Le dimanche, 19 octobre 2014, 23.29:21 Charles Plessy a écrit :
> --
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
> General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless
> of the outcome o
Hi,
On Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
> General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the
> outcome of
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:19:03)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>>> Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To
>>> me this looks like a legitimate fork.
>>>
>>> Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to m
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Alessio Treglia writes ("Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of
> choice of init systems)"):
>> Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
>> > I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: GR option text on ballots"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a
> > positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary
> > line for my proposal:
> >
> > Packages may not require a specific init syst
Alessio Treglia writes ("Re: Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of
choice of init systems)"):
> Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
> > I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
> > `directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately
Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardle
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion a
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
>> Ian Jackson writes:
>>> David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative
>>> init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:26:57AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Perhaps if you picked something other than runit you'd make your point more
> effectively. Try using the case of someone who makes a tool that depends
> from System V init running as process #1. It is hardly farfetched.
Luca Falavigna writes:
> I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
> and I hereby call for seconds.
>
> ** Begin Alternative Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The Techni
50 matches
Mail list logo
