On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:26:57AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Perhaps if you picked something other than runit you'd make your point more
effectively. Try using the case of someone who makes a tool that depends
from System V init running as process #1. It is hardly farfetched.
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
While I appreciate that this is a very important issue for a lot of
people, I am deeply concerned by the point in time it is revived.
_*We have less than 3 weeks till the Jessie freeze starts!*_
I agree
On 10/17/2014 10:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
removed from jessie.
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
Yes, indeed.
The implication of this proposed GR seems to be that those tools
On 10/17/2014 11:26 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants
to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
Yes, indeed.
The implication
In linux.debian.vote Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
If people want to make Debian derivatives that work only with a
particular init system, that's completely fine. The reverse - trying
to put back support for sysvinit, if it gets taken out of Debian,
would be very very
On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of
init systems):
nevertheless, runit behaves differently when it is pid 1 than when it is
used in a subordinate role to another initsystem. If i'm upstream and
i'm building
Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (2014-10-17 18:38:35)
On 10/17/2014 12:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
And the GR text is quite careful: it doesn't say that failure to work
with one init system is worse than any other bug. It is only
_requiring a specific init system to be pid 1_ which is forbidden.
Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
The implication of this proposed GR seems to be that those tools
would be unfit for inclusion within debian unless someone erects all
the additional scaffolding that runit provides (process supervision,
pipelined logfiles with autorotation and log msgs just sent to
Ian Jackson writes (Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems):
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
proposed by Matthew Vernon in March:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03
On 2014-10-16 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
proposed by Matthew Vernon in March
11 matches
Mail list logo
