On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ M-F-T set to debian-vote@l.d.o, not seeking sponsors yet see below. ]
>
> Hi!
>
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
> been made to
Hi Guillem,
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 Debian (or, with the exception of upstart, even
> updating the policy
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
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
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 con
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 polit
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.
[ Given the tone in this mail, I'd usually not bother replying, but I
guess it's my duty given the proposed changes to the draft. ]
Hi,
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 16:53:12 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I think you are missing the following options and have only listed options
> which you consider s
Guillem Jover writes:
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
[...]
My feeling at this stage is that the TC are best placed to make a
decision on the technical merits of the various possible in
Le Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
> been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6))
Hi Guillem,
I agree that calling the
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:58:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> > I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> > premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
> > been made to rea
Le Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:26:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:58:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > We have a default init system that has the Essential flag, and it is
> > impossible to switch to alternatives without going through a very strong
> > warning.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or that
> system (“vote with the feet”). For the packages where init scripts are a
> limitation, just depend on systemd, upstart, openrc, or combinations of them,
>
Le Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:14:41AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or that
> > system (“vote with the feet”). For the packages where init scripts are a
> > lim
Before I forget, there's one thing I wanted to say about this:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
> Option A
[...]
> Option B
[...]
> Option C
[...]
> Option D
[...]
> Option E
[...]
> Option F
[...]
> Option G
[...]
Please don't do that. If you want to propose a
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for
Debian"):
> > As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the
> > project to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in t
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
> how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
> certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
>
That w
Neil McGovern writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> That would certainly seem to be the case, but it would be illogical for
> a group who is happy to be overridden with a lower requirement to be
> prevented from doing so!
Quite.
I think it's
Neil McGovern writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
> > > this?
> >
> > You mean my T
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>> I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
>> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
>> Resolution on a simple majority.
> I don't think our co
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> > Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> >> I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
> >> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacate
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
> > this?
>
> You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> > Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> >> I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
> >> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacate
On 01/23/2014 07:58 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Perhaps the way out is to solve the technical problem regarding the Essential
> flag so that it is easier to install systemd, upstart or openrc, and defer a
> decision untill the call for change comes from enough maintainers of init
> scripts saying t
Matthew Vernon :
> My feeling at this stage is that the TC are best placed to make a
> decision on the technical merits of the various possible init
> replacements and how we might deploy them in Debian. Given that there
> is also a political element to this discussion, we could consider a GR
> in
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:06:12PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
No seconds. Many objections.
The TC has a decision. The flame is finally smoldering out. Can we move
on as a project?
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Pro
Hello,
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:06:12PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> > PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
>
> No seconds. Many objections.
Sorry, I don't see this. Second proposal actually has
sponsors, e.g.:
h
On Sat, February 15, 2014 15:06, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> I feel that if the GR results on the quoted above pool would
> be different from TC - that may affect other TC decisions.
>
> Ian, would you like to sponsor GR in this form?
>
> PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
With
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:14:41AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or
> > > that
> > > sy
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
>
> -
> If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
> two other Debian Developers, will roll a dice.[...]
> -
>
> I am looking for seconds. And no, that
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:31:50PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
> >
> > -
> > If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
> > two other Debian Develop
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 17:06:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > What I am saying is:
> >
> > Let's allow the Debian system to evolve freely: the result will not be
> > breakage, but systemd as a de facto default.
>
> This arg
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> But if the technical
> committee fails to make a decision, and if a GR does the same, we'd end
> up with "no decision".
No. __If__ that happens, we'd end up with a decision "keep the status quo, aka
keep sysv as the default init system"
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 17:06:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> > So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
> >
> > -
> > If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
> > two other Debian D
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > But if the technical
> > committee fails to make a decision, and if a GR does the same, we'd end
> > up with "no decision".
>
> No. __If__ that happens, we'd end up w
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 18:15:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Ok, given what you mentioned above, your preference is not easily
> > represented with the current GR draft, and I don't think this
> > amendment makes much sense (at le
51 matches
Mail list logo
