Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-11 Thread Ian Jackson
Santiago Vila writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling): On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off (in my

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-11 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
On 11/11/2014 02:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: Santiago Vila writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling): The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this: GR Proposal: Option A. Amendment A: Option B. Amendment B: Option C. we might better

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-10 Thread Neil McGovern
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-10 Thread Ian Jackson
Neil McGovern writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling): Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this manual action in future. I'm currently working from http

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-10 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off (in my CFT) ? The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this: GR

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-10 Thread Neil McGovern
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Neil McGovern writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling): Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this manual

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-10 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Neil McGovern writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling): Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this manual

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

2014-11-09 Thread Josh Triplett
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.] Sune Vuorela wrote: I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. /Sune [17:35:34]

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

2014-11-09 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) The we are currently skeptical wording

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

2014-11-09 Thread Josh Triplett
[Please CC me on replies.] Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

2014-11-09 Thread Andreas Barth
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-06 Thread Julian Andres Klode
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system [ 2 ] Choice 2: Support for other init

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-06 Thread Julian Andres Klode
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general)

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-04 Thread NOKUBI Takatsugu
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e [ 2 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system [ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not mandatory [ 4 ] Choice 3:

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

2014-11-04 Thread Philip Hands
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system [ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not mandatory [ 2 ] Choice 3: