On 11/16/2014 10:28 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > In the absence of that, it seems quite understandable to > interpret this as yet another attempt by the TC to undermine systemd.
It's nothing but that exactly that, not more, not less. The decision which init system Debian would use was already made and the vast majority of upstream projects and end users *want* systemd. I remember how the proponents of init systems other than systemd insisted how important it is to be portable and that we desperately need to support the kFreeBSD. And look what just happened, kFreeBSD was dropped from stable. That particular argument was a strawman because *none* of the people who came up with that argument that I know of were actually using the BSD port. > [1] (one of the reasons I took part in refining drafts of it, with > clarifying language explaining precisely why it would not affect the > ongoing transition, though in retrospect that language was clearly > insufficient) I appreciate your help and input and I think you have been a very reasonable and valuable contributor. However, you helped answering a question that we actually already had an answer for. > I'd also disagree with "when asked to do so", considering that the asker > was a TC member; Which is why that particular proposal should have been dismissed in the first place. The idea that one of the CTTE member makes a proposal that he and the rest of the CTTE is going to vote over is absurd since the person who makes the proposal is never actually going to be able to cast a neutral and objective vote. His vote is already fixed before the proposal is handed in. The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a proposal. > in effect, the committee asked itself to decide, and > subsequently answered, just as with 762194. And whether you consider it > an attack on a maintainer / maintenance team or not, it's unreasonable > to completely ignore the consequences of your decisions. Yes, I agree. The fallout was to be expected and there will be more unless these people who keep pushing these proposals immediately stop doing what they're doing and accept that the majority of users and developers want systemd and that it simply not feasible to support more than one init system. Heck, we don't even have two versions of ffmpeg/libav allowed in unstable and those are less critical than the init system. > I share your sadness that this and many other actions has driven Tollef > away from the maintenance of a critical and difficult-to-maintain > package. I do not, however, share your sanctimony. Not just Tollef but also Joey. And I have met both Tollef (in Oslo and Portland) and Joey in person (in Portland) and have corresponded with both of them over mail and IRC several times. Both of them are incredibly patient and calm and neither of them would just throw the towel without being seriously frustrated with what is happening here. Please stop with that non-sense, immediately! Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - [email protected] `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - [email protected] `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
