On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:35:11AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:59:10PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Jan 30 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
#debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
FYI, I'm travelling this week and don't believe I'll make it
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Do you have an updated patch with this change and a documentation of the
tmpfiles.d change?
I will draft a resolution shortly to implement this patch, and will
open it for discussion.
Bastian has uploaded lvm2 2.02.104-1 which contains my patch:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that, your opinions about the quality of GNOME upstream development
don't seem relevant to the problem we're trying to resolve. If you don't
like the software, don't use it.
Unfortunately, it doesn't save us, as the set of
Don Armstrong wrote:
Below is the current draft of a resolution to resolve 728486. I have
one current comment in the draft which I would like clarified. [CTTE
members: please comment/suggest change.] I also expect to change the
reference to the patch to a newly updated patch with the changes
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
2014-01-30 ChaosEsque Team chaosesquet...@yahoo.com:
[bullshit]
This was actually *not* bullshit. The delivery of most of the
content could use some polishing, but the content is a(n inconvenient)
truth.
Wasn't there some kind of a ban applied here?
Apparently not, but
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:05:05PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
This was actually *not* bullshit. The delivery of most of the
content could use some polishing, but the content is a(n inconvenient)
truth.
Man, if someone was spouting garbage like that in support of systemd,
you bet your mksh
Putting it another way, then, I expect there are some people who will
not want systemd on their GNU/Linux systems. I don't think it matters
if their reasons are technical, political, irrational fear or personal
dislike of the creator; I'd like them to have that choice and for it to
work as well
I have taken Bdale's text, reformatted it a bit, and added the GR
rider and the multiple init systems rider texts.
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
For the multiple init systems
Ian Jackson writes (TC resolution revised draft):
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
I see that Bdale has his own draft in git.
The differences are:
* My GR rider is different to
Ian Jackson writes (TC resolution revised draft):
I'm going to follow up in a moment with a formal action to propose
a resolution, starting the constitutional discussion period.
I hereby formally propose what I have called UM (text below).
I also hereby formally propose DM as an amendment, but
On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
has a preference for O and V over OM and VM please say so.
Couldn't it bias the outcome if votes might otherwise have been split
between O
Steven Chamberlain writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
has a preference for O and V over OM and VM please say so.
I think you made a c-p typo, see below:
That will leave us voting on (most likely):
Dsystemd default in jessie, say nothing about multiple inits
DM systemd default in jessie, support multiple inits
Usystemd default in jessie, say nothing about multiple inits
On 2014-01-30 15:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
Our voting system (Condorcet with Schwartz Cloneproof Sequential
Dropping) is designed to cope with that. In actual practice I'm
expecting to have a single Condorcet winner in which case
splitting/joining options is totally irrelevant.
I really hope you
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
So if we assume that upstart wins, would it be acceptable to depend on
systemd (or vice versa)? We might then get a set called, say, Unity,
depending on upstart and one called, say, GNOME, depending on systemd,
which would
2014-01-30 Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de:
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
2014-01-30 ChaosEsque Team chaosesquet...@yahoo.com:
[bullshit]
This was actually *not* bullshit. The delivery of most of the
content could use some polishing, but the content is a(n inconvenient)
truth.
Wasn't there some
Matthias Klumpp dixit:
What would happen if we adopted systemd?
The project would lose (a different set of) contributors and users.
The OSS ecosystem would lose, vendor-lock-in would ensue in a way
even worse than the FSF does, and the remnants of Unix/GNU in Debian
would die, to be replaced by
Matthias Klumpp writes (Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution
proposal - Don't like software, don't use it. Absolutely.):
What would be the effecr if we decided to drop GNOME, because it
depends on systemd?
In this hypothetical scenario:
It would be fairly easy for a
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
On 2014-01-30 15:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
== optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
On 30/01/14 17:01, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
And the GNOME/systemd people are invited to make their dream
of the FLOS GNOME OS into a Debian derivate or Pure Blend.
If the chosen default is something other than systemd, and if the TC
resolution does not prevent GNOME having a hard dependency on
Le jeudi 30 janvier 2014 à 21:38 +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit :
[Lots of crap]
Where is the list of problems for sysvinit we intend to solve?
https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#sysvinit_.2B-_insserv
--
.''`.Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To
Your message dated Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:13:16 -0800
with message-id 20140130181316.gi5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
and subject line Re: Bug#728486: Current patch for resolving lvm/systemd
compatibility
has caused the Debian Bug report #728486,
regarding Determine how to handle incompatiblity
Matthias Klumpp writes (Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal
resolution proposal - Don't like software, don't use it.
Absolutely.):
What would be the effecr if we decided to drop GNOME, because it
depends on systemd?
In this hypothetical scenario:
It would be fairly easy for a
Excuse the ignorance if this suggestion winds up being not any
different from Ian's current proposal, due to the specifics of the
Condorcet method. But in case it is, it strikes me that coupling the
multiple vote with the init vote allows for more voting options,
and thus the potential for an
Who wrote the parts of sysvinit+openrc and sysvinit+insserv? Maybe that
person should modify some of the faulty information for these cases.
Some points:
sysvinit+insserv/openrc:
D-Bus interfaces: Why are they needed, nothing of this is defined by
POSIX? And dbus is already heavily depending on
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:47:02PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 30 janvier 2014 à 21:38 +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit :
[Lots of crap]
Nice argumentation, as usual...
Where is the list of problems for sysvinit we intend to solve?
Jason A. Donenfeld dixit:
Question B. Debian will allow alternative, non-default, init systems on Linux:
No, as Ian already explained this will not permit people
to vote, for example:
A with multiple B with multiple B alone NOTA A alone
bye,
//mirabilos
--
diogenese Beware of ritual lest
We had a good drafting session on IRC. Here are the results.
I hereby propose (and propose and do not accept amendments as
necessary), so as to provide the following options:
DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific
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 Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Sergey B Kirpichev
skirpic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:30:04PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
GNOME upstream won't really change
Why? There are non-Linux GNOME users, for example. If the GNOME
developers don't care even about such popular
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
What would be the effecr if we decided to drop GNOME, because it
depends on systemd?
In this hypothetical scenario:
It would be fairly easy for a downstream of Debian to mandate systemd
for their users, and provide Gnome.
It would not
A couple of comments inline below.
Ian Jackson wrote:
== dependencies rider version T (Tight coupling) ==
This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
Software may require a specific init system
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
tolerable.
For instance, consider a gnome-session-systemd package which uses
Hi!
Apologies for jumping into the discussion even though I'm not a Debian
Developer.
== dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==
This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
Sergey B Kirpichev skirpic...@gmail.com writes:
Are X-people indeed sacrifice portability, or there is something
different (e.g. these dependencies are optional)?
Speaking as the X server release manager, the systemd patches exist
solely to provide for interoperation with systemd or other
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian, Bdale, Andy, Don and Russ agreed on IRC that this was a good
ballot. Steve, Colin, Keith: let us know, and perhaps we can start
the vote sooner.
I can vote with this ballot. Sorry I had to disappear in the middle of
the meeting; that
Petr Baudis pa...@ucw.cz writes:
Would such a particular example of (greatly, but not fatally) degraded
operation fall within the intent of this proposal?
I think so, yes.
I do think forcing users who've made a conscious decision to live this
way to click through a warning pop-up on each
2014-01-31 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com:
Sergey B Kirpichev skirpic...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
Where is the list of problems for sysvinit we intend to solve?
For X, the problem is running X as a user other than root, which should
provide for increased system security as we'll be reducing
Matthias Klumpp matth...@tenstral.net writes:
Of course it does not exclude implementing that stuff in a different,
non-systemd tool, but to my knowledge nobody has done that yet.
Exactly so. I have ideas on how this might work in a simpler and more
general fashion, but people rarely listen to
39 matches
Mail list logo
