Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Steve, first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little glitch. seccond, if you feel that deeply about that particular patch[1] and want to still add see upstart support in tftpd-hpa for jessie, i'm happy to re-include it. to the allegations made in this bug report: upstart support has been only *temporarily* be present in experimental. it has never been in unstable, technically there was never any upstart support. Regards, Daniel [1] http://daniel-baumann.ch/gitweb/?p=debian/packages/tftp-hpa.git;a=commitdiff;h=0ec85b4d4fcd3d4bbd7fa97e81c35fd301ac7060 -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5364a96a.5040...@progress-technologies.net
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140503 01:54]: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Package: tech-ctte An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to my attention: tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low * Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now. Since various members of the Technical Committee argued that choosing a default would not prevent Debian from supporting other init systems, I would like to hear from those members how they think this should be addressed. In general, pulling upstart support while upstart still exists in Debian feels wrong. However, since this is in experimental, and not in a released tree or release candidate, this particular case is hard for me to get worked up about. There are two different thoughts in my mind: 1. This shows in a very wrong direction. Upstart support might not be useful for long, but it is now, and dropping a useful feature should only happen if there is a cause for. 2. There are things I worry more about with this particular maintainer than that. So if we think about overruling him, there might be better uses for. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140503080546.gz20...@mails.so.argh.org
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com (2014-05-02): However, since this is in experimental, and not in a released tree or release candidate, this particular case is hard for me to get worked up about. http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tftp-hpa.html has the timeline for the last few dozens uploads. Last items are: [2014-04-11] tftp-hpa 5.2-18 MIGRATED to testing [2014-03-31] Accepted 5.2-18 in unstable (low) [2014-02-18] Accepted 5.2-17 in experimental (low) ... meaning upstart support is completely gone, not only in experimental. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: I have CC'd the packages@address for the package. jftr, you haven't (tftpa-...@packages.debian.org != tftp-...@packages.debian.org). but i have seen the bug by chance today when checking the ctte mailing list in my inbox, so i guess no harm done/time lost. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5364bc05.7050...@progress-technologies.net
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
On 05/03/2014 10:05 AM, Andreas Barth wrote: if we think about overruling him, there might be better uses for. such as? i'm not aware of anything that would displease you in my packages, let alone anything that would require to 'overrule' me. in the absence of any bug report from you against any of my packages, please let me know of any issues you're having and i'll look into fixing them. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5364bdaa.40...@progress-technologies.net
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
On 3 May 2014 09:31, Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote: Steve, first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little glitch. seccond, if you feel that deeply about that particular patch[1] and want to still add see upstart support in tftpd-hpa for jessie, i'm happy to re-include it. As part of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mysql-5.5/+bug/1273462 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712763 I'm working on a patch to add a hook into lsb-initfunctions.d (which init.d script in your package sources) that way no changes to the init script would be required / nor exit codes added / nor dependency on higher (debian specific) functions from sysv-init package. In essence this brings back upstart-job symlinks, but via lsb initfunctions hook, thus the following would happen if one invokes init.d script: # /etc/init.d/ssh restart ssh stop/waiting ssh start/running, process 6946 This is more in-spirit with previous (ubuntu-only) implementation of sysv-init migration which made /etc/inid./ssh a symlink to an upstart-job script that called into initctl commands. This is also similar to what systemd integration on Debian/Ubuntu does. I believe adding above lsb hook is compliant with Debian Policy §9.11.1 in a sense that init.d scripts avoid running in favor of the native upstart job. It's just in common case it's done on behalf of the maintainers / users. to the allegations made in this bug report: upstart support has been only *temporarily* be present in experimental. it has never been in unstable, technically there was never any upstart support. There is, however, support for upstart in ubuntu for that package and a developer of that derivative had to spend extra work rebasing/reintroducing the support back as part of regular merge work to keep up to date with changes introduced in Debian. Thus slightly more development time was used up on this issue/bug collectively across debian derivative distributions. [1] http://daniel-baumann.ch/gitweb/?p=debian/packages/tftp-hpa.git;a=commitdiff;h=0ec85b4d4fcd3d4bbd7fa97e81c35fd301ac7060 -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canbhlugaiyc-wfjm7ebmdnmgfsllsms_oji1lpsh2da424y...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just wrote that Steve could have just get in touch. - Why are we loosing time to discuss the timeline of uploads, to see if there was upstart support at some point or not? What's the point of doing this? - Why this bug isn't just closed, and the issue just discussed between Steve and Daniel, so that a technical solution can be found? Daniel seems to agree to have upstart support, so what are we discussing exactly in this bug? - Why are some people like Andreas making dangerous allusions to other maters that seem unrelated, with no reference? I don't think such gratuitous accusation this is welcome in this bug (or in fact, anywhere in Debian). Or is it just OK because this is Daniel that we're talking about? If so, that's unfair. If Daniel wrote: Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now. probably that's what he felt (eg: that upstart is dead). He's probably just wrong about it, and we should Assume good faith (ref: our code of conduct). [And, by the way, I do agree that what the Debian policy proposes at 9.11.1 is an ugly hack, and that Upstart should know better...] We've just adopted a code of conduct, were we should Be respectful, Assume good faith, and Be collaborative. I know Daniel well, and I believe he is a nice person, which is trying to do all of the above, and do what is technically right. It'd be nice if the persons interacting with him also tried to act in this way. For me, the next course of action is: - Close this bug - Let Steve and Daniel work out reintroduction of Upstart in his package - Have everyone calm down and stop useless finger pointing Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53651027.7070...@debian.org
Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Le samedi 03 mai 2014 à 10:31 +0200, Daniel Baumann a écrit : first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little glitch. Wild guess: because the Technical Committee is being treated as a personal playground by a couple developers. Maybe they should read the Constitution, especially §6.3.6. Ironically enough, this advice applies most to the person who originally wrote it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1399135724.7081.6.ca...@kagura.malsain.org
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
Thomas Goirand writes (Bug#746715: Shocking read ...): I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just wrote that Steve could have just get in touch. This is backwards. If the maintainer had a problem with the patches, they should have explained the problem earlier. I think there is no excuse for the maintainer's behaviour in this case. The maintainer has even now, after being challenged, failed to come up with an explanation. Under the circumstances I think the maintainer should at the very least have contacted the patch submitter before reverting the patch. I think that the rapid escalation to the TC, to at the very least supervise the conversation, is entirely appropriate in this case. I'm glad to see that this conversation has now resulted in the maintainer agreeing to reinstate the patch. Given that the propriety of escalation to the TC is disputed, I think it would be worth saying the TC something explict about it. How about something like: A maintainer recently peremptorily removed support for upstart from one of their packages. The Technical Committee thanks Steve Langasek for bringing this matter to our attention. We are pleased that the maintainer has agreed to revert the disputed change. For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. I would expect Steve to abstain on a resolution which mentions him by name in this way. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21349.11545.519993.11...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
2014-05-03 19:53 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: Thomas Goirand writes (Bug#746715: Shocking read ...): I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just wrote that Steve could have just get in touch. This is backwards. If the maintainer had a problem with the patches, they should have explained the problem earlier. I think there is no excuse for the maintainer's behaviour in this case. The maintainer has even now, after being challenged, failed to come up with an explanation. I absolutely disagree. The maintainer previously accepted a hackish patch to solve an issue. Now, since systemd has been selected as default and upstart was dropped by Ubuntu, he did what every good maintainer should do and dropped the patch, because it didn't seem to be needed anymore, and the justification for the hack went away. Now that people came stating that the use-case for the patch is still valid, the matter was discussed and the maintainer was open for patch-reinclusion and discussion, and in the end an even better solution was achieved. So, nothing wrong here and I agree with Thomas. Under the circumstances I think the maintainer should at the very least have contacted the patch submitter before reverting the patch. Indeed, that could have been done to improve that matter, but that this hasn't been done is not immediately obvious from the changelog entry you quoted. And really, the TC should not babysit people for good behaviour of contacting patch submitters - this was just a minor think in this case, and it has been dealt with. I think that the rapid escalation to the TC, to at the very least supervise the conversation, is entirely appropriate in this case. I'm glad to see that this conversation has now resulted in the maintainer agreeing to reinstate the patch. Are you sure he wouldn't have accepted the changed without the TC? I pretty much have the impression that the TC wasn't necessary at all here... [...] 2014-05-04 1:03 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#746715: Shocking read ...): On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not. The TC has not formally expressed a view on this. [...] Exactly! So even if he dropped the upstart stuff entirely, there wouldn't have been something wrong from the perspective of the TC. Only from your perspective. And IMO it's just fairt to assume good faith that people will support the maximum amount of different configuration options for their packages, as long as feasible. Cheers, Matthias -- Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caknhny8tsveor+ayeyd9gwwomajckjbfedu1umfqotzoyud...@mail.gmail.com
