On 22/10/14 at 07:45 +0900, 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 General
Resolutions,
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
General Resolutions, as the GR process may be
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
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,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered.
The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent.
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
Hi Neil,
I realized that myself afterwards, please forgive my ignorance.
Indeed, I'm not a registered Debian developer, so my vote cannot be
accepted.
Sergey
On 22 October 2014 13:39, Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose
myself what init system to use in my Debian setup.
This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in
db.debian.org. Unfortunately,
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments):
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
by his proposal.
Yes.
In practice such
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Charles Plessy writes ([Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR,
please??? amendement.):
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
I'm not entirely convinced this is quite regular.
You are the
Ian,
Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments):
I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd
and sysvinit - that's anything but basically fine!
It's only a war between systemd and
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (2014-10-22):
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 Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
cases of doubt. -- from appendix B in the constitution.
OK, I didn't remember that
On 21/10/14 at 20:09 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
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”
Hi,
On 20/10/14 at 14:47 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org 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,
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the
middle of next week about that.
Hi Lucas,
2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
the discussion period to one week?
Fine for me.
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1
week):
I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
to shorten the discussion period.
I reached out to Ian in
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes:
During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small
legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the
default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able
to serve as input in future TC discussions
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org (2014-10-22):
Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments):
I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between
systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but
Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org (2014-10-22):
On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will
Ian Jackson wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments):
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
by his proposal.
On 22 October 2014 20:14, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments):
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
uselessd | systemd
Uoti Urpala wrote:
Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new
GR to override this one?
I was originally worried about this too, and it's one reason out of many
why I strongly dislike using GRs to decide technical matters.
My understanding though, is that this GR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
The Debian project asks its
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
the discussion period to one week?
I am fine with shortening it.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
24 matches
Mail list logo
