Hi Steve,
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 13.07:54 Steve Langasek a écrit :
Here's what I think is the right technical policy, that we should be
addressing with this resolution.
- Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
interfaces (i.e., init scripts in
On 8 February 2014 18:26, Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'd consider that tactical voting. Basically, I think the value in the
FD option is to be able to say this option has not been fully baked,
and more discussion would be
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:17:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On 8 February 2014 18:26, Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
I'd actually call it a bug in the voting system that the casting vote
might decide between an option
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
So to make my position clear: L does not accurately reflect what I
think we should be doing; but given the option between L and T, I was
willing to vote L above FD and was not willing to vote T above FD
because I think T unambiguously sets the stage
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The Technical Committee offers no advice at this time on requirements
or package dependencies on specific init systems after the jessie
release. There are too many variables at this point to know what the
Sorry, cut and paste error. The
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
I do think it's bizarre that we seem to have ended up with coupling
options that don't treat the default init system differently. This
makes no sense to me, for *either* T or L. Unfortunately I was severely
backlogged at the point when this was being
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:38:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
...
I don't see any reason why,
say, mountall or socklog-run should be required to support sysvinit.
...
What about udev?
cu
Adrian
--
Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness.
]] Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:38:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
...
I don't see any reason why,
say, mountall or socklog-run should be required to support sysvinit.
...
What about udev?
We will continue supporting udev at the current level for the jessie
release cycle.
Hi,
Thank you both for inviting comments on this from a porter's POV.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
- Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
interfaces (i.e., init scripts in /etc/init.d).
This would be greatly reassuring; if adopting systemd, this
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I consider the L option as currently written to be a commitment to a
course of action that is technically broken and unsustainable. I also
think the effect of L is contrary to its intended goal and will make it
less likely, not more likely, that Debian
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 01.08:46 Keith Packard a écrit :
I think a fair number of us seem to feel that the T/L notion is at
least as important, if not more important, than the D/U/O/V decision
as it sets a broader and longer-term precedent for the project than
choosing which init system
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:04:20AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I am not sure whether Colin is aware that it currently depends on him
whether or not DT can win - and whether that might make him consider
changing his vote.
If Ian convinces Colin to change his vote to move DT from 5. to 7. on
Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian Anthony Towns writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init
Ian system resolution):
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block
options that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have
Nikolaus Rath writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
It is not at all clear to me why the CTTE so desperately wants to
automatically defer to a GR in their resolution. If there is consensus
to defer to a GR with simple majority among the CTTE, surely it would be
easy
Sam Hartman writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
[some quoted stuff]
I'm a bit confused by this.
To be clear, none of the quoted text is from me.
I find the votes expressed by TC members entirely consistent with their
stated verbal positions, and if anything people
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options, for all your votes.
I have added the following texts to the drafts
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:25:02PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
L makes it less likely that Debian will support anything other than the
default init system in the long run because it undermines the process of
adding native configuration for non-default init systems. If we said that
packages are
Colin Watson writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
Agreed on both counts. I understand why Ian (was it?) wanted to have
the multiple init systems for the foreseeable future text, as a
statement of general intent, and I don't disagree with that. But I
would prefer
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org (2014-02-05):
The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick
scan of the early parts of this bug are Wouter and myself; Tollef also
contributed a good deal in the past, and
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:39:34PM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org (2014-02-05):
The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick
scan of the early parts of this bug are
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:08:46AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I consider the L option as currently written to be a commitment to a
course of action that is technically broken and unsustainable. I also
think the effect of L is contrary to its intended
Hi,
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Just to be very clear here, I do believe that we're deadlocked, even
though I expect the resolution process to be able to spit out a decision.
I don't mean deadlocked in the sense that Condorcet will fail, but rather
deadlock in the sense that the
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Just to be very clear here, I do believe that we're deadlocked, even
though I expect the resolution process to be able to spit out a
decision. I don't mean deadlocked in the sense that Condorcet will
fail, but
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140207 02:09]:
I also flatly disagree with Adrian over whether we're deadlocked. I
don't see any point in discussing it, though.
I agree with you, I don't see any reason why we are deadlocked. If we
want to do yet
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:25:02PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
Leaving tactical aspects aside, IMHO the important point is that there
is a compromise line that seems reasonable for all members of the TC:
For the upstart side of the TC, the most
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
If you have any question for -boot@, please send a mail there. If you
want some input from either Christian or me, please cc us to ensure we
don't miss that mail.
And, FWIW, though I *am* in some way following the -ctte list
(including the giant
Keith Packard wrote:
I believe that votes cast in the last ballot demonstrate a unanimous
agreement that the answer for this package dependency question does not
in any way depend on which init system is the default, and so this
question could be resolved separately, with the question
Colin Watson wrote:
Part of my concern with T is that it's so mealy-mouthed. Where
feasible, should, encouraged, etc. By contrast, L is a bit
heavy-handed. It sounds like we may share some common goals between
these, and maybe if we want those to stick properly we need to state
those more
Bug cc dropped, replaced with -ctte.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:29:27AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
that aren't your favourite.
When you are saying a set of
This is silly. It's pretty clear that everybody made up their minds a
long time ago, and no matter how the resolution is worded, it will come
down systemd upstart 5:4. The only question is on how to guide
maintainers once the init system is changed.
-Rick-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:43:25PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Colin Watson dixit:
Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as efforts to
resolve [the issue] via consensus.
But is not diversity some sort
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I think what we're trying to say looks something like this:
...
The result of that GR is A. However, the choice picked by the above
algorithm is B. So B becomes the TC decision, despite the fact that A is
the result
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution):
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
2. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:32:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
In response to the uncertainty about
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
I think I signed my votes when I started on the TC, but then noticed
that nobody else was doing so and stopped bothering. I can go back to
signing them in future, though, since it sounds like it would make some
people more comfortable.
I just sign
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:58:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
have ignored.
I'm
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
- You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
the GR isn't trying to override the ctte. You could for
instance do this
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
- You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
the GR
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
- You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
the GR is being voted on your decision
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect. The
desired
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution):
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
what form
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Either of these options will require 2:1, though.
Let me quote §4.1.4:
Together, the Developers may: [...] Make or override any decision
authorised by the powers of the
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
that has the right effect, please suggest something else.
Yes, I think
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
we've already had, openrc and sysvinit are clearly not going to defeat
any option, so their position in your vote is largely irrelevant.
If we
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On 7 February 2014 06:20, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution):
Given the already stated preferences of the CTTE, and the previous votes
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 07:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Presuming everyone votes, where you put F only has an impact in either
case only if at least three other ctte members will also vote FD above
T or DT (given UT is irrelevant); which based on the
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:20:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
...
This is one of the major reasons why I'm voting GR second. I see Bdale's
point that we shouldn't abdicate our responsibility to make the best
decision that we can, and I followed that maxim by voting my preference
first. But
On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD,
then T is dead.
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
ctte to be
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech
ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals considered
reasonable by all the members, and
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
- A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
- B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
- FD
In
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
Leaving tactical aspects aside, IMHO the important point is that there
is a compromise line that seems reasonable for all members of the TC:
For the upstart side of the TC, the most important question is T/L.
For the systemd side of the TC, the most
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
The list of options, and full resolution text, are
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
2. DL systemd
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Options on the ballot:
[...]
I Vote:
1. DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
2. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
4. UL
Ian,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140205 17:39]:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
== rider for all versions except GR ==
This decision is automatically vacated by any contrary General
Resolution which passes by a simple majority. In that case the
General Resolution takes effect and the whole of this TC
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
8. OT openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
8. VT sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
...
Is this a typo or an intentional equal ranking?
cu
Adrian
--
Is
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [140205 18:45]:
I think whichever option wins on this ballot, if the TC leaves the
discussion here it will be a bad outcome for Debian because it leaves
maintainers without clear guidance about how to avoid fragmenting the
archive.
What would you like to
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140205 21:09]:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:15:00PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140205 21:09]:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options, for all your votes.
Sorry not to give you an explicit heads-up about
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#727708: package to change init systems):
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
6. FD further discussion
7. UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
8. OT openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options, for all your
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
As regards the default init system we are making a decision which has
been requested of us by the people normally responsible (which would
be the d-i maintainersI think).
The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who I
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments. All the options require a simple majority.
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
2. DL systemd default in
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:08:35PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The big question, I think, is whether section 6.3.6 of the
constitution has been satisfied. The project is still clearly working
on solutions, but at a slower pace than some may desire. See this for
a recent example:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options
Colin Watson dixit:
(Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap).
I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
to install Debian… and debootstrap goes by whatever ftp-masters put
Colin Watson dixit:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html
Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as efforts to
resolve [the issue] via consensus.
But is not diversity some sort of
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:28:41PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
paultag made the request while referencing 6.1.2 as the relevant
clause. He isn't involved in d-i.
(Heyya, mgilbert! :) )
I brought it forward under that clause because it made sense at the
time, but I think the TC is free to
Steve Langasek writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
resolution):
I am very unhappy to see this CFV in my inbox this morning.
I'm sorry about that.
I made it known that I was not satisfied with the set of ballot
options, and I was still in the process of drafting language
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
have ignored.
I'm sorry if I also missed a mail.
Anyway, I think as regards T vs L we
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I vote:
1. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
2. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. FD further discussion
If you are serious about
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:29:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who I don't
think is on the d-i team (or if he is I hope he'll forgive me for
observing he isn't very active).
FTR - I'm not on the d-i team, and havn't been. No worries :)
I hereby change my vote:
1. FD further discussion
2. UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
4. OL openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
5. VL sysvinit default in
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
FD first: would you care
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
So assuming that the current vote
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
guess it's up to the secretary.)
I've actually asked that they do that before, but it's not really
a requirement.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Options on the ballot:
DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
UL
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution):
To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's
On 6 February 2014 11:20, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
anyway.
The
On 05/02/14 at 22:41 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Colin Watson dixit:
(Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap).
I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
to install
On 6 February 2014 16:27, Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au wrote:
Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:
4x UL DL UT DT (steve, colin, ian, andi)
2x DT DL UT UL (russ, don)
Ah! I thought there was something to add here
The above votes divide neatly into upstart v systemd
87 matches
Mail list logo
