Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
P2: DL UL DT UT
P3: UT UL DL DT
P4: UT UL DL DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
need to be voted on in a single ballot.
If one votes on T-vs-L before
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
P2: DL UL DT UT
P3: UT UL DL DT
P4: UT UL DL DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
need to be
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:27:47AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
GNOME certainly uses these interfaces already. Whether they should be
considered a dependency or not is probably something that should be left
to the maintainers' discretion. But I think they should certainly be
handled the
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
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
No, Josselin was making the technical claim that GNOME 3.10 would need a
working logind even for basic functionality.
So if it is possible to get the basic functionality of GNOME 3.10
without a working logind, his claim is just
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal):
[stuff]
Thanks for that, which I mostly agree with.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Thus, for me, all of the T variants in Ian's latest draft
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 726763 with 727708
Bug #726763 [gnome-settings-daemon] gnome-settings-daemon: no suspend on close
lid, action not configurable, key missing
726763 was not blocked by any bugs.
726763 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of
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
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 08:09:24PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 726763 with 727708
On whose behalf are you setting such a block? You are not listed as a
maintainer of gnome-settings-daemon, and even those members of the TC
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
The above 'block' would be tantamount to an assertion that you have no
intention of accepting patches from maintainers of non-default init
systems to provide compatibility unless forced to do so by the TC;
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:28:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal):
Thus, for me, all of the T variants in Ian's latest draft
(21226.41292.366504.997...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) rank below FD.
In my mail
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Where would this ballot option rank vis-à-vis FD, for those TC members who
are opposed to the loose coupling option?
== dependencies rider version S (split-the-init) ==
This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
continue to
Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
And so I am greatly dismayed by the position Russ and Bdale have taken
in this discussion with respect to packages being allowed to depend on a
specific init system. Both have expressed the opinion that Debian
should remain
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
It should be completely trivial to introduce a virtual
org-freedesktop-login1 package (modulo any complexities introduced by
interface versioning for new methods added to that interface). However,
it also seems pointless until there's a prospective
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:24:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 08:09:24PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 726763 with 727708
On whose behalf are you setting such a block? You are not listed as a
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:21:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
It should be completely trivial to introduce a virtual
org-freedesktop-login1 package (modulo any complexities introduced by
interface versioning for new methods added to that
On 2 February 2014 04:05, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
So his example was one where the D/U and L/T choices were independent
for every
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:12:34PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
In particular, in the case of GNOME, I don't see any package in the
archive yet for a fork of logind that depends on systemd-shim instead of
systemd, so there's no alternative available for GNOME to depend on.
There is no fork of
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:34:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
The above 'block' would be tantamount to an assertion that you have no
intention of accepting patches from maintainers of non-default init
systems to provide compatibility unless forced
Steve Langasek writes (Re: Processed: block 726763 with 727708):
In other words: I think the technically correct thing here is obvious and
simple and invariant with respect to any decision the TC is going to make;
(Disclaimer: I have had some wine and am tired. This may make no
sense or be
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think it's reasonable to leave testing and unstable users of our
default desktop environment without working suspend and resume for more
than a month (systemd-shim was accepted into unstable on Dec 28, and
this was mentioned on the bug) when a
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
The block added above simply reflects the many comments from GNOME folks
(and systemd folks for that matter) saying that they're waiting for the
fallout to clear before making any drastic changes. Furthermore, it
reflects the
]] Steve Langasek
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:27:47AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
GNOME certainly uses these interfaces already. Whether they should be
considered a dependency or not is probably something that should be left
to the maintainers' discretion. But I think they should
]] Steve Langasek
While I think the Depends: systemd should be dropped (via a split of the
systemd package),
While you keep asking for this, I think I've quite clearly said I'm not
interested in that. You're of course free to suggest it to the CTTE
that the systemd maintainers should be
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:24:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
The block added above simply reflects the many comments from GNOME folks
(and systemd folks for that matter) saying that they're waiting for the
fallout to clear
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:23:11PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:12:34PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
In particular, in the case of GNOME, I don't see any package in the
archive yet for a fork of logind that depends on systemd-shim instead of
systemd, so there's no
Init should be simple, secure, and get out of the way. It should not take over
the system. We should not be forced to use an init that does.
This man said it best:
wizardofbits.tumblr.com/post/45232318557/systemd-more-like-shit-stemd
Init has one other job, which is to keep the process tables
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 15:24 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I think the Depends: systemd should be dropped (via a split of the
systemd package), that's not required for fixing the present problem.
That
can be
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
I think there is a huge problem with recommending that systemd be
installed by the user changing the init line in grub: a package can not
depend on an init system being PID 1. Can a package be made that changes
the init line to systemd? I think
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
currently running sysvinit suddenly resulted in running systemd without
some sort of critical debconf question or the like.
Indeed.
On Saturday, February 01, 2014 19:14:21 Cameron Norman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I *like* systemd, and I would still be very unhappy
if a routine aptitude upgrade (or even a dist-upgrade) of a system
currently running sysvinit suddenly
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
And that does matter a lot, since such claims seem to be the basis
of all these GNOME in jessie needs systemd or with multiple init
systems, GNOME will need a dependency on
Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com writes:
This is not really what I was interested in. I want a package for each
init system (init-systemd, init-upstart, etc.) that uses something like
init-select (under the hood) to prompt the user to change the init
system. This will allow packages
33 matches
Mail list logo
