-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems)"):
> For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
> further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period
> will not b
Hi,
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice
> of init systems)"):
>> For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
>> further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period
>> will not be extended any f
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice
> of init systems)"):
> > For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
> > further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'.
> > $ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days'
> > S
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
> freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
> freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The last (and only) formal amendment I accepted was my own, on Sunday
> > the 19th.
>
> It looks like you're right.
G
The Wanderer writes:
> Is it? I thought part of the problem is that there are packages whose
> upstream supports (or at least enables) compiling with / without
> integration to functionality provided by systemd, and which are provided
> in Debian only as compiled with that functionality enabled,
[I agree wholeheartedly with Russ's points regarding systemd and logind.
One tangential response to a different point:]
Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are a ton, but because Debian architectures encode choice of kernel,
> they're represented in the archive as packages that are not available for
> kFr
(Responding quickly to only the part I think I can address well on short
notice, without needing to spend a long time thinking it over.)
On 11/02/2014 at 07:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>> systemd-shim 8.2 and 7.1 do not list a dependency on systemd, or
>> appear to invoke
The Wanderer writes:
> On 11/02/2014 at 07:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That's because the point of systemd-shim is to provide the services
>> that logind requires without running systemd as PID 1, so that packages
>> can then depend on logind without requiring systemd be PID 1. That
>> didn't
Josh Triplett writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There are a ton, but because Debian architectures encode choice of
>> kernel, they're represented in the archive as packages that are not
>> available for kFreeBSD or Hurd, or only available for kFreeBSD, or only
>> available for Hurd.
> That said,
12 matches
Mail list logo
