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
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
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes:
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org (2014-10-18):
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
All received and valid.
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Luca Falavigna 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.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the record, the TC expects
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
includes merging reasonable contributions,
Hi,
Joey Hess:
Luca Falavigna 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.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That
On 20 October 2014 21:14, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Luca Falavigna 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.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:46:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
decided:
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
support the multiple available
Hi Kurt,
On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC and put them under
4.1.4.
I do not follow you on this argumentation. The
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
Hi Kurt,
On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC and put
Arno == Arno Töll a...@debian.org writes:
Arno Hi Kurt,
Arno On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
more of the options into overrding the TC
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Either it's a position statement, or we're making position
statement (4.1.5), or using the TC's power (4.1.4).
In #727708 it says that a position statement will replace
this TC resolution.
In #746715 there is no such text.
So the question is going to be if this
On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno Töll 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 everyone to focus on the
connotation in Luca's amendment. It allows
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:03:49PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
that's going on.
Hear, hear.
My dayjob is doing PMO[1][2] style work tracking and modeling
Hi,
Joey Hess:
Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on
this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking
that's going on.
Well, vote them below FD then.
Except for the nice two-paragraph we don't need no stinkin' GR amendment
that's going
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical
Hi,
On Samstag, 18. Oktober 2014, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of
* Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org [2014-10-18 12:21:18 +0200]:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
[snip]
2. Specific init systems as PID 1
Debian packages may
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question
On 10/18/2014 at 06:21 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal, and I
hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
2. Specific init systems as PID 1
Debian packages may require a specific init system
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback!
2014-10-18 13:50 GMT+02:00 The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm:
Imagine that the maintainer of package foo decides, as they are entitled
to do under this proposal, that 'foo requires upstart for proper
operation' (choosing upstart just as an example here), and
Hi Lucas,
Thank you for your feedback!
2014-10-18 14:13 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org:
1) packages may require the default init system if:
- their maintainer consider this a prerequisite for its proper operation
- no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other
Hi Luca,
On 18/10/14 at 15:53 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Hi Lucas,
Thank you for your feedback!
2014-10-18 14:13 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org:
1) packages may require the default init system if:
- their maintainer consider this a prerequisite for its proper operation
-
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum:
While I understand your concerns, I think that it is highly unlikely
that we will decide to change the default init system to something that
would break existing packages without a known reasonable way to fix
them.
Exactly.
We decided to change our (default) init
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question
Hi Luca,
On 18.10.2014 12:21, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling
Hi.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the
❦ 18 octobre 2014 12:21 +0200, Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org :
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
[...]
Seconded.
--
Format a program to help the reader understand it.
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes:
2. Specific init systems as PID 1
Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed
as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper
operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or
by
33 matches
Mail list logo
