On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:51:56AM -0600, Tony Thedford wrote:
On 02/18/2014 09:34 PM, Jason Frothingham wrote:
...
Adopting systemd does not, in any way shape, form, idea, concept,
conclusion, thought, etc. etc. etc. prevent, pervert, divert, etc. etc.
etc. the goal of a
It is just as I thought.. incompetence has taken control. Good luck with
that.
On 02/19/2014 08:30 AM, Paul Hedderly wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:51:56AM -0600, Tony Thedford wrote:
On 02/18/2014 09:34 PM, Jason Frothingham wrote:
...
Adopting systemd does not, in any way
Putting the systemd issue on bugs.debian.org is a bit ridiculous I
would say! As to why there are developers within Debian who are hellbent
on turning Debian into buggy desktop software rather than keeping with
the universal operating system directive.. I will never know! Debian is
a major
question for you: which would you have Debian developers do:
A: complain about historical issues in systemd that have largely been
patched or addressed
B: complain about what systemd is like now
C: submit patches to systemd that fix outstanding bugs
D: submit patches to systemd that fix
On 02/18/2014 09:34 PM, Jason Frothingham wrote:
...
Adopting systemd does not, in any way shape, form, idea, concept,
conclusion, thought, etc. etc. etc. prevent, pervert, divert, etc.
etc. etc. the goal of a computationally stable, bug-free, and flexible
operating system.�
First of
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140208 20:50]:
I expect that Debian can and should continue to support multiple init
systems for the foreseeable future. I also believe that Debian can and
should take an active role working with upstream projects on software
that is important to us, such as
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:56:56PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
- - - start ballot - - -
We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction
(6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux
architectures in jessie should be
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
A.6.6: Schwartz set is {D,U}
A.6.8: There are no defeats in the Schwartz set, so the elector with
the casting vote chooses which of these options wins.
Per 6.3.2, the casting vote is held by the Chairman, who is currently
Bdale.
Thank you,
---BeginMessage---
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
A.6.6: Schwartz set is {D,U}
A.6.8: There are no defeats in the Schwartz set, so the elector with
the casting vote chooses which of these options wins.
Per 6.3.2, the casting vote is held by the Chairman, who is
On 11/02/14 16:09, Svante Signell wrote:
How can you make this statement when the voting period is not over?
What if some CTTE members decide to change their vote?
Debian Constitution 6.3.1:
the voting period lasts for up to one week, or until the outcome is no longer
in doubt.
Given that all
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:35:13AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
A.6.6: Schwartz set is {D,U}
A.6.8: There are no defeats in the Schwartz set, so the elector with
the casting vote chooses which of these options wins.
Per 6.3.2, the casting
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in the chair's
ballot. To require the chair to explicitly exercise their casting vote, as
opposed to the chair's preferences as expressed on the ballot being applied
automatically, opens up
Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Bdale Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
the chair's ballot. To require the chair to explicitly exercise
their casting vote, as opposed to the chair's preferences
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Bdale Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
the chair's ballot. To require the chair to explicitly
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Bdale Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
If the chair ranked them equally in his ballot, why should he express a
different preference when it comes to the casting vote?
Oh, the obvious answer -- if the chair's preference didn't end up in the
tie, he'd have to explicitly vote from the remaining
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:22:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think the vote should always result in something, and as such
the person having the casting vote needs to pick one of the
options that are left in the Schwartz set. If there was no
preference between them, a choise will still need
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:54:50AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
If the chair ranked them equally in his ballot, why should he express a
different preference when it comes to the casting vote?
Oh, the obvious answer -- if the chair's preference didn't
]] Steve Langasek
The *only* use of a casting vote that is different from the original ballot
is a strategic one, and we should never allow this. In the case described,
the chair should just express the preference between the remaining options
(perhaps by amending their vote, which is
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
Obvious, but wrong. We use Condorcet to enable fully expressing our
preferences among all the ballot options, not just our first-choice
preference. The chair using a casting vote between two tied options (or
three, which is the problematic case) is expressing a
Matthias Urlichs sm...@smurf.noris.de writes:
Steve Langasek:
Obvious, but wrong. We use Condorcet to enable fully expressing our
preferences among all the ballot options, not just our first-choice
preference. The chair using a casting vote between two tied options
(or three, which is the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:22:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Bdale Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I vote: V U O
:)
--
. ''`. Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’ : email: un...@debian.org jabber://un...@uvw.ru
`. `~’ GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
`- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555 E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
I vote D U O V F.
I would appreciate it if you could reply to self with signed mail
re-stating this.
Thanks,
Richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:49:37PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
I have carefully considered Ian's current proposal for a process and
schedule to reach a next ballot on the init system issue, and do not
believe it is the best way for us to proceed.
The fundamental problem is that I remain as
Hi,
Michael Gilbert:
I'd be happy to see a change post-jessie, but I feel like it is a
self-imposed rush to push anything through for jessie.
Given that certain other distributions switched to systemd umpteen months
ago, I see that less as rushing and more as we're late to the game and
do NOT
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
I vote UDOFV.
So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
for the casting vote).
This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
potentially agreeable ballot all around, and had stated his
disappointment
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I vote UDOFV.
So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
for the casting vote).
This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
potentially agreeable ballot all around, and had stated his
Bdale Garbee writes (call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie):
I have carefully considered Ian's current proposal for a process and
schedule to reach a next ballot on the init system issue, and do not
believe it is the best way for us to proceed.
This unannounced CFV is an abuse
Keith Packard writes (Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie):
Let's finish that vote then and move on.
Once again Bdale has proposed a vote on his own motion.
However, my own proposal was on the table and has not been withdrawn.
Bdale chose to put forward his ballot
On 10/02/2014 6:21 AM, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
wrote:
Keith Packard writes (Re: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
Let's finish that vote then and move on.
Once again Bdale has proposed a vote on his own motion.
However, my own proposal was on the
Serge Kosyrev skosy...@ptsecurity.ru writes:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I vote UDOFV.
So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
for the casting vote).
This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
potentially
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:41:38AM +0400, Serge Kosyrev wrote:
Serge Kosyrev skosy...@ptsecurity.ru writes:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I vote UDOFV.
So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
for the casting vote).
This trumps
On 10 February 2014 06:41, Serge Kosyrev skosy...@ptsecurity.ru wrote:
False. Three messages on this list brought this conflict of interest
into light:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2810 by Anthony Towns
[...]
There was no answer.
So, fwiw, I thought the above was
I have carefully considered Ian's current proposal for a process and
schedule to reach a next ballot on the init system issue, and do not
believe it is the best way for us to proceed.
The fundamental problem is that I remain as convinced now as I was when
I posted my last CFV that conflating
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
- - - start ballot - - -
We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction
(6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux
architectures in jessie should be
Dsystemd
Uupstart
Oopenrc
Vsysvinit
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
The fundamental problem is that I remain as convinced now as I was when
I posted my last CFV that conflating multiple questions in a single
ballot is a bad idea. Our voting system works exceptionally well when
we're trying to choose between multiple
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:49:37PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
So... I want to try and simplify this again using essentially the same
ballot I put forth before, but with all the concerns raised by other
committee members addressed... except for Ian's demand that we conflate
the T vs L question
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I agree with Ian on this. At this point, it should be clear to everyone
that, given the stated preferences of each member of the TC, the default
init system for jessie will be systemd. But I do not think this is the
most important aspect of the
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I will note for the record here that a number of DDs have at this point
given the TC an ultimatum in private, stating that they will start a GR if
the TC does not call for votes within a specified time limit. I suspect
that this ultimatum didn't have
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I agree with Ian on this. At this point, it should be clear to everyone
that, given the stated preferences of each member of the TC, the default
init system for jessie will be systemd.
Let's finish that vote then and move on.
But I do not think this
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 02:18:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree with Ian on this. At this point, it should be clear to everyone
that, given the stated preferences of each member of the TC, the default
init system for jessie will be systemd.
Without an official vote we can *not* say
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, Bdale Garbee wrote:
- - - start ballot - - -
We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction
(6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux
architectures in jessie should be
Dsystemd
Uupstart
Oopenrc
V
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
- - - start ballot - - -
We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction
(6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux
architectures in jessie should be
Dsystemd
Uupstart
Oopenrc
Vsysvinit
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com writes:
That is an entirely separate issue. I agree that it is important and
needs to be resolved, but the Technical Committee is the wrong place to
be designing this policy. We must (by 6.3.5) not engage in design of new
proposals and policies.
Well, in
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Well, in defense of the discussion that Steve, Colin, and I have been
having, I do think it's worthwhile for the TC to try to hammer out a
compromise on that point as well and express it as either technical advice
to the project or as technical policy.
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Keith Packard writes:
That is an entirely separate issue. I agree that it is important and
needs to be resolved, but the Technical Committee is the wrong place to
be designing this policy. We must (by 6.3.5) not engage in design of new
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:46:07PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
This should not be our priority. Our purpose
here is to make sound technical decisions on behalf of the project, not to
preserve the TC's (or Debian's) reputation among third parties who have no
legitimate say in the
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, in defense of the discussion that Steve, Colin, and I have been
having, I do think it's worthwhile for the TC to try to hammer out a
compromise on that point as well and express it as either
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:24:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
At this point, it's blocking folks inside Debian, who are stakeholders.
It's not just the trolls of reddit and the internet, it's DDs who are
annoyed there's no decision and integration work isn't started. We're
less than a
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes:
Why not hammer that out on -policy in public, and only if something goes
wrong there, then defer it to the TC?
Because -policy doesn't have a decision-making process other than
consensus, so Ian's objections to all
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
As soon as we settle which init system is default (and by a rough count,
I believe this issue is resolved now, thank you TC :) )
It's not. All ballot options have to have a majority above FD in order to
be eligible to win the ballot. At least one
On 08/02/14 23:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
There has never been anything blocking any
Debian developer from doing work on improving the integration of systemd in
Debian, on their own packages or on the packages of others.
OTOH I'm eagerly awaiting the TC's decision[s] because it will likely
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because -policy doesn't have a decision-making process other than
consensus, so Ian's objections to all of the positions shy of L and my
objections to L would deadlock and effectively block the
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org writes:
IMHO it was a little frustrating that Ian's ballot couldn't go ahead
last week and reach a consensus on both issues.
I would be very interested in your comments, from the perspective of a
non-Linux port maintainer, on the language that Steve and I
El Sat, 8 de Feb 2014 a las 3:48 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
escribió:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
As soon as we settle which init system is default (and by a rough
count,
I believe this issue is resolved now, thank you TC :) )
It's not. All ballot options have to
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
I understand you think that, and I empathize, but I disagree.
The fact is, I have limited time. If I'm going to focus on making a
bigger impact with my work, I'm going to stick to dealing with issues
that effect the most users.
I don't
El Sat, 8 de Feb 2014 a las 3:56 PM, Michael Gilbert
mgilb...@debian.org escribió:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
I understand you think that, and I empathize, but I disagree.
The fact is, I have limited time. If I'm going to focus on making a
bigger impact with my
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
But at least it would follow the usual process, and only when
consensus does actually fail does the TC need to mediate.
If you're looking for Policy Editors who enjoy running things through a
process that won't be successful just so that we
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
If you're looking for Policy Editors who enjoy running things through a
process that won't be successful just so that we can say they've been
run through a process, you're going to need someone
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:53:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org writes:
IMHO it was a little frustrating that Ian's ballot couldn't go ahead
last week and reach a consensus on both issues.
I would be very interested in your comments, from the perspective
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Look, I've been involved in Policy work for years now. I think I have a
pretty good intuition for what sort of questions can be dealt with
usefully in that framework and which ones can't. You're certainly
entitled to think that I'm wrong,
]] Steve Langasek
Annoyed, yes. Blocked, no. There has never been anything blocking any
Debian developer from doing work on improving the integration of systemd in
Debian, on their own packages or on the packages of others. This has always
been possible, without making systemd the default
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:56:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Why bring such a controversial and polarizing issue before the TC if
the outcome doesn't matter much to you?
OK, phrased badly. I don't care what it is, so long as it's not
sysvinit :)
I believe it to be broken, and not a
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:56:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Paul, you know I think you're awesome, but you've stirred up a whole
lot of trouble here with a questionable motive.
What motive is that, if I might ask?[1] :)
[1]:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Instead, none of the important implementation related stuff has been
discussed.
Correction, a lot of that has been discussed, but there has been no
progress on it due to the distraction on the bigger political problem.
Best wishes,
Mike
On 9 February 2014 09:52, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If you're looking for Policy Editors who enjoy running things through a
process that won't be successful just so that we can say they've been run
through a process, you're going to need someone other than me.
In that case, wouldn't
Anthony Towns writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
Ian Jackson wrote:
Anthony Towns writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie):
So looking at the votes today, I would have said that both Ian and
Andi's original votes are against this (ranking the options which
allow specifying a dependency on a specific
Josh Triplett writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
That is a very interesting clarification, and not one that seems at all
obvious from the text of 'L'. 'L' talks about Software outside of an init
system's implementation, which does not seem like it
Hey Colin,
On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
pid 1 ?
Q2a: Is it OK for packages providing init systems to provide other
APIs
Anthony Towns wrote:
On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
pid 1 ?
Q2a: Is it OK for packages providing init systems to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:23:11AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is
requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default
one. But I would prefer to vote a ballot that
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:23:11AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is
requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default
one. But I would
(I was informed, that my posts are not welcome anymore here. So,
there is last one for all.)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Sergey B Kirpichev skirpic...@gmail.com writes:
I just wonder why nobody from tect-ctte take care about the exact
specification of that
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:13:33AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
We might disagree on the extent, perhaps, but I doubt anyone on the
committee would vote against this in its general form; both systemd and
upstart implement interfaces beyond the bare minimum, though upstart
certainly takes a more
Sergey B Kirpichev skirpic...@gmail.com writes:
I just wonder why nobody from tect-ctte take care about the exact
specification of that bare minimum (or, in other words, what exactly
is wrong with sysvinit).
In a sense, we all have done this, even if you don't see it explicitly
written in
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:39, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
I don't want to pass a resolution specifying the default without also
answering the other two, related, contentious questions:
Q1: Do we intend to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:05:01PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
For anyone intending to make Debian the laughingstock of the open source
world, here is a good opportunity:
Debian decides that Upstart is the default init system for
On 19:01, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:05:01PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
What makes you think gnome is going to be the default?
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tasksel/tasksel.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfca406eb694e0ac00ea04b12fc912237e01c9b5
Read the text in
Bdale Garbee writes (call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie):
The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be
1. systemd
2. upstart
3. openrc
4. sysvinit (no change)
5. requires further discussion.
It looks like this is going to
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
Bdale Garbee writes (call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie):
The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be
D. systemd
U. upstart
R. openrc
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie):
So that leaves my text from yesterday:
M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy. Software outside of an init system's
implementation may not require a specific
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Q1: Do we intend to support multiple systems long-term, or do we
intend to settle on a single system, probably in jessie+1 ?
Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
pid 1 ?
[...]
Firstly, as I have said, TC members
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Q1: Do we intend to support multiple systems long-term, or do we
intend to settle on a single system, probably in jessie+1 ?
Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
If we are I to vote now, I would like to see on the ballot at least:
If we choose to proceed with this kind of a vote, the combinations I
care about are adequately captured by this list.
I remain uncomfortable, however, about trying to be
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think there are the following three reasonable answers to Q1/Q2
taken together.
i. Q1: Multiple in jessie
Q2: Requiring specific init is forbidden
ii. Q1: Multiple in jessie
Q2: Requiring default init is permitted
iii.
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think there are the following three reasonable answers to Q1/Q2
taken together.
i. Q1: Multiple in jessie
Q2: Requiring specific
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think it doesn't make sense to allow people to require a non-default
init. If you think it does then there are three possible answers to
Q2: requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the
default one, requiring the default
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think it doesn't make sense to allow people to require a non-default
init.
I think this position is consistent with allowing each maintainer broad
autonomy, and not overly burdening them with requirements that may make
it difficult or
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is
requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default
one. But I would prefer to vote a ballot that doesn't mention
dependencies at all.
I agree with this; I don't
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
If we are I to vote now, I would like to see on the ballot at least:
DM systemd by default, but also others
DO systemd only in jessie+1
UM upstart by default, but also others
UO upstart only in jessie+1
RM openrc by
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:39:51AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy. Software outside of an init system's
implementation may
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:12:54AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think it doesn't make sense to allow people to require a non-default
init.
I think this position is consistent with allowing each maintainer broad
autonomy, and not
Bdale Garbee writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is
requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default
one. But I would prefer to vote a ballot that doesn't mention
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie):
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
M. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
Debian decides that Upstart is the default init system for jessie,
but it's default desktop GNOME forces the installation of systemd.
There are reasons I've left gnome behind...
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpplPgi_3rkN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think there are the following three reasonable answers to Q1/Q2
taken together.
i. Q1: Multiple in jessie
Q2: Requiring specific init is forbidden
ii. Q1: Multiple in jessie
Q2: Requiring default init is permitted
iii.
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
