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 which
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-21 02:41:12)
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk 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
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno T?ll 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
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:14:44AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
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
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:06:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a ??crit :
I think that it would be very helpful to describe how the question has
already been resolved. My understanding is that the various proposals
add policy on
Matthias Urlichs writes (Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers
technical competence over the software they maintain):
Really? To me, For the record, the TC expects does not introduce
a ruling.
Precisely.
It seems to be, rather, a strongly-worded but informal declaration how the
TC
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
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?
It was
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR option text on ballots):
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for
my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think
contains coded criticisms of my
Hi,
On 16.10.2014 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds.
[...]
** Begin Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The
Hey,
Moving from -project. Reference:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054
Like I said, I'd rather provide a second than make a proposal, but at
debconf Stefano [0] said he'd appreciate some sample wording, so
here's what I came up with, based on where I was
Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions.
Even if it can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of the
amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say that a GR is unwelcome, and
b) to reduce as much as possible the “attack surface” on the voted text in case
some people want
I support this proposal, and if that was intented as a formal proposal
I'd probably second.
I'd also support:
* making this something the TC decides for themselves with your wording
as an initial condition
I do think rotation in bodies like the TC is really good both for the
members' personal
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Moving from -project. Reference:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054
Like I said, I'd rather provide a second than make a proposal, but at
debconf Stefano [0] said he'd appreciate some sample
I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
nominees at all).
Not allowing people to be reappointed if there are nominees and they're
just
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
+At this time, any member of the
+Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
+prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire.
About this, I wonder if the text should specify in
--
L.S.C.A. Francisco González Flores
Redes y Comunicaciones
CDE PRI Chihuahua
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 outcome
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
FWIW, I found the original wording about this part from
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/06/msg00026.html
much easier to follow, but it might be a non-native speaker failure on
my part.
Hmm, aren't a majority of
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 16:05 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
proposed by Matthew Vernon in March:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg0.html
and the
Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Charles Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it
Charles can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of
Charles the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say
Charles that a GR is unwelcome,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
nominees at all).
In that
Hi,
On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote:
my response is so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in
their way.
I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they
disagree over whether all the questions have been answered.
I agree. I've also been
Andy,
Thank you for the email.
You can currently use Debian without systemd as long as no package you use
depends on systemd.
That depends on systemd hook is a primary objection for those of us who know
better. Why should a non-init package depend on a particular init system?
Only systemd
Hi debian-vote,
The below poster redirected their response to my off-list mail back
to the list. I explicitly mailed them off-list and with a reply-to
of only myself set in order to avoid further list noise, and because
they seemed like they were genuinely confused.
I now see that they had an
Le Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:13:52PM +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit :
On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote:
my response is so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in
their way.
I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they
disagree over whether
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if
Hi Charles,
On Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our
Contitution.
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes:
Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
=
A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj])
(if you are confused with “one” here, it’s basically fine to read it as
“sysvinit”
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be
30 matches
Mail list logo
