Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages

2021-01-17 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 17/01/2021 10:29, Andreas Henriksson wrote: Possibly getting off topic here, but I happened to read a bit of this discussion and while seeing your comment I thought it might be a good time to remind you about #934463. I agree it's off-topic here, so I've sent a message to that bug

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages

2021-01-16 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 16/01/2021 01:39, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Matthew Vernon dijo [Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +]: Please overrule the maintainer in #923387 so that it is can be used on systems with elogind; it has been tested and shown to work thus as well as being supported by upstream[1

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages

2021-01-11 Thread Matthew Vernon
Hi, On 10/01/2021 20:03, Simon McVittie wrote: If you intend the scope of this bug to involve overruling maintainers' decisions in packages other than NM, what other packages/bugs did you have in mind? Is it just udisks2/#923387, or are there more? I understand (but I don't think it has been

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2021-01-02 Thread Matthew Vernon
Hi, I see that network-manager 1.28.0-2 has been uploaded, with (inter alia) the following changelog entry: * Demote libpam-systemd to Recommends. This allows users to use and experiment with other init systems. Such a setup is neither tested nor fully supported and users need to be aware

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-12-23 Thread Matthew Vernon
Hi, On 21/12/2020 23:36, Elana Hashman wrote: The maintainer, Michael Biebl, reached out to the tech-ctte privately. I have summarized his reasoning for why he dropped support for elogind and the init script that prompted this bug: Thanks. There's little point trying to have this discussion

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-12-16 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 14/12/2020 21:56, Philip Hands wrote: Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both sides of this discussion could live with? [...] My suggestion for a mutually bearable solution would be that the network-manager package could have its dependency on

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-12-16 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 15/12/2020 22:07, Sam Hartman wrote: However, Debian remains an environment where developers and users can explore and develop alternate init systems and alternatives to systemd features. Those interested in exploring such alternatives need to provide the necessary development and packaging

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-11-30 Thread Matthew Vernon
at 17:33:26 +, Matthew Vernon wrote: I invite the technical committee to rule that: * The network-manager init script should be restored * Network-manager should Depend: on default-logind | logind rather than libpam-systemd This looks like a request to use the technical committee's power

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-11-19 Thread Matthew Vernon
[I don't need a CC, thanks] Hi, I know it was mentioned back in the day, but trying to re-ask it now: Wouldn't it be possible to ship init scripts for compatibility purposes from a sysvinit (or maybe a sysvinit-support) package? This would be the inverse of what happened back when systemd was

Bug#975075: tech-ctte: Should maintainers be able to block init compatibility changes?

2020-11-18 Thread Matthew Vernon
Package: tech-ctte Control: block 921012 by -1 Control: block 964139 by -1 X-Debbugs-CC: debian-init-divers...@chiark.greenend.org.uk Dear Technical Committee, This bug report relates specifically to bugs in the network-manager package (#921012, #964139) but has broader implications,

Re: CTTE requesting questions for DebConf20 BoF

2020-07-30 Thread Matthew Vernon
Hi, A few thoughts, if I may: On 26/07/2020 21:37, Sean Whitton wrote: Private Discussions --- One way to solve the perception issue is to have a way for people to have private discussions with the TC. I think being able to have some private discussions with the TC could be

Re: TC delays

2015-08-31 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 31/08/15 08:39, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: - issues not having a "mentor" within the committee; I'd like us to try pursuing the latter idea: for each topic submitted to us, we'd put one of us in charge of "making sure the issue keeps moving": reformulating, pinging, leading, etc. That

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

2015-08-28 Thread Matthew Vernon
On 28/08/15 19:22, Sune Vuorela wrote: On Thursday 27 August 2015 18:11:56 Ian Jackson wrote: (c) be destroyed. Given that there are people who want to maintain it, I think (c) is unacceptable.[1] Unfortunately, the people who wants to maintain it are not the same people who has to carry

Bug#636783: supermajority bug

2014-06-28 Thread Matthew Vernon
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Russ Allbery writes (Bug#636783: supermajority bug): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an