+++ Matthias Klose [2014-11-26 15:29 +0100]:
I'm not sure how best to respond to all this. Obviously I disagree
with some of it, and it's remarkable how much our views of the history
of debian cross-compilers differ :-)
I don't think anyone wants a lot of tit-for-tat debate as that's not
very con
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
> And according to https://bugs.debian.org/762194 with preliminary
> results in https://bugs.debian.org/762194#142 the order of pre-depends
> for int init package should change from
>
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
>
> to
>
> Pre-Dep
]] Svante Signell
[...]
> And according to
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194
> with preliminary results in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#142
> the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysv
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 28, Svante Signell wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
Of course not.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> > No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
> > interpretation before.
>
> That was almost word by word from
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/
On 11/28/2014 03:24 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
>> interpretation before.
>
> That was almost word by word from
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html
See [
On 11/28/2014 03:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
>> system administrator chooses otherwise.
>
> I disagree with you, and so does CTTE, this time: they said
> that existing installations
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
> interpretation before.
That was almost word by word from
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html
bye,
//mirabilos
--
>> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 28, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> > kept.
> I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
> system administrator chooses otherwise.
I disagree with you,
On 2014-11-28 14:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 28, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> [...]
>> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>> message about alternative init systems.
> It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user
> with pointless ad
On Nov 28, Svante Signell wrote:
> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
> the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
That would probably require changes in d-i to ensure that
systemd is, inde
Hello,
In the (last) hope that the CTTE will bring this issue on the agenda
next meeting on December 4. Additional information below and a short
summary.
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > (another partial? solution is to
13 matches
Mail list logo
