* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140125 19:01]:
Therefore, I call for votes on the following ballot. If any of you feel
that this is the wrong way to proceed, feel free to vote further discussion
above all other options. I would appreciate votes from all TC members
on this ballot as soon as
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 08:16 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
You are forgetting the best technical solution, which is what
gnome-session is actually implementing at the moment:
session_tracking=systemd (with fallback to ConsoleKit) [1]
No.
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, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 08:16 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
No. My question isn't about logind, but about using a user systemd
session to supervise processes started by the session. IIRC both GNOME
and KDE were
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 06:55:45 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Chris Knadle
I'll just mention that the proposal of switching out the default init
system in jessie+1 sounds a bit scary, as it will change a basic
administration interface in the middle of a Stable support period.
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
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
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
Michael Gilbert dixit:
Why not avoid impeding progress and just let gnome do what it needs to
work the way it wants, which would involve depending on the right
Excuse me, why is GNOME, specifically, being allowed to “do what it
wants”, in this case? Imagine other software with a more-or-less
Olav Vitters dixit:
IMO other init systems should provide the interfaces which GNOME
requires. It is not up to GNOME to provide these. That or takeup
There is a lot wrong with that statement.
Imagine you’re working on/with a software FOO that is not yet
packaged in Debian. Say it comes from the
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
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
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 01:24:12PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 08:16 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
No. My question isn't about logind, but about using a user systemd
session to supervise
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
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie):
So to clarify, I think a proposal can be withdrawn, but once the
vote has been called it can't be withdrawn, and you're left with
things like not reaching quorum of voting FD over the other
options.
Right. If
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
pgpud6GoOLbVe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ian Jackson writes (init system gr override - formal resolution proposal):
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
contrary view expressed by a
Ian Jackson writes (multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal):
I hereby propose the following resolution:
1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
So even if Colin would vote you couldn't beat the default option
(FD), and all the other options would be dropped. As such I think
the result is no longer in doubt and FD wins.
Thank you Kurt, this matches my understanding.
I therefore assert the ballot
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.
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Of these (ii) would cause the non-default inits to rot. Unless anyone
thinks this is a useful option I don't think we should vote on it.
ii is
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init
system for jessie):
Do you agree with Russ and Bdale that it would be better not to
Wait, where did Russ come from there ? I meant Keith.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Of these (ii) would cause the non-default inits to rot. Unless anyone
thinks this is a useful option I don't think we should vote on it.
ii is my preferred option.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
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
Hi Don,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05:18AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
patches to enable interoperation, even if it results in degraded
operation.
Did
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05:18AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
patches to enable interoperation, even if it
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05:18AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The former. So :
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
patches to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:08:19PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The former. So :
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems;
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Zbigniew was talking about a package that has a dependency on a
*non*default init system.
Ah, OK. That's easily resolved with
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 22:20 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:08:19PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The former. So :
Where feasible,
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 support multiple systems long-term, or do we
intend to settle on a
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:24:12PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 08:16 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
No. My question isn't
We have to see it for what it is. Lennart Pottering and his acolytes
who work within other projects are essentially forking Gnu/Linux and
are creating LennartOS.
What should be done is to follow their often spoken refrain: fork
every project that relies on systemd, xyzkit, LennartStuff:
create
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 jessie,
but it's default desktop GNOME forces the installation of
The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Jan 30 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
#debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
The current agenda is below:
#startmeeting
#topic Who is here?
#topic Next Meeting?
#topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al.
#topic #636783 super-majority conflict;
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Michael Gilbert dixit:
Why not avoid impeding progress and just let gnome do what it needs to
work the way it wants, which would involve depending on the right
Excuse me, why is GNOME, specifically, being allowed to “do what it
wants”,
Lets look at the problem little more broad than systemd vs upstart
the Linux kernel linked stuff.
Freebsd the most intergrated init system is most likely going to be
launchd or releation.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
Solaris Management Console is the most integrated init system with a
ChaosEsque Team chaosesquet...@yahoo.com
We have to see it for what it is. Lennart Pottering and his acolytes
who work within other projects are essentially forking Gnu/Linux and
are creating LennartOS.
Debian is a multi kernel solution. So solution has to deal with the
fact all OS's are
These discussions of grand schemes to change the future of Linux
development are potentially interesting in the right forum, but this isn't
the right forum. The goal of this discussion is to decide what Debian is
going to do for jessie, with some discussion of what Debian might do after
jessie.
49 matches
Mail list logo
