On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 at 16:34:27 +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> I didn't want to inflict work on the debian-cd
> team, and I assume that nobody will object if volunteers turn up to help
> build/test the free images. If they're built and tested, I'm pretty sure
> they'll be published.
As one of the
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 at 19:20:29 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
> > Many common laptops in the last 5-10 years don't come with wired
> > ethernet; it's becoming rarer over time. They ~all need firmware
> > loading to get onto the network with wifi. Many now need firmware
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:09:20 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting
>
>
> ince we can either have [...]
I assume this was meant to start with "Since"?
smcv
I've lost track of who wrote:
> > > Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> > > to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> > > decisions.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 10:28:55 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I would prefer the change to extend
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 at 13:56:21 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> In this case the chair surely wouldn't vote to overrule
> themselves as that would be a completely nonsensical behaviour,
The casting vote cannot be used to select an option that is not in the
Schwartz set (loosely: it can only be
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 at 21:46:08 +0200, someone claiming to be Enrico Zini wrote:
> We explicitly refuse to acknowledge irrelevant political issues
I was surprised to read this apparently coming from Enrico, particularly
since it doesn't seem consistent with what Enrico has said in other
threads
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 23:06:55 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> another option would be 'unstable-proposed' (or whatever) where packages get
> uploaded to, and which only gets moved to 'unstable' if they don't fail
> piuparts,
> autopkgtests (plain build tests) and so forth...
Do you mean this to
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 23:54:16 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think when people personally feel excluded/diminished/pick your term
> then it's appropriate to work on how to frame things to see how to make
> them feel welcome (e.g. if someone is more comfortable being referred
> to by they,
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 at 09:37:07 +, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> it seems like there is an alternative — have them provided by
> a different package. Probably one package providing quite a few of
> them. It'd need some way to only try to start installed daemons, but
> that sounds solvable.
Not
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 at 00:28:54 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Wasn't there a plan to add support for containers managed through
> systemd that have filtered access to the system dbus, or is that just a
> special case of a service unit?
As a general rule, "heavyweight" containers with their own
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 at 04:26:53 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> My expectation was that with systemd, dbus activation functionality
> would have moved into the main systemd binary for better process
> tracking and to avoid code duplication with the other activation methods.
Yes ish, but on an
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 at 22:14:06 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> It's bin:libpam-systemd that pulls bin:systemd-sysv (the package that makes
> systemd the init on the system), not bin:systemd. Here it's dbus-user-session
> that pulls it because it needs a logind (dunno if it works with elogind)
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 at 22:02:31 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> In that particular case, the user session must be available to allow
> activation of gsettingsd via dbus
There is no such thing as gsettingsd. Presumably you mean dconf-service
(which is conceptually one of many backends, although in
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 at 11:13:46 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Richter writes:
> > Right, but the dependency chain is there to make sure the package is
> > usable on systemd systems
>
> My recollection is that these dependencies are mostly about either making
> sure user sessions are
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> it being subject to a plebiscite?
Thank you for raising this, Chris.
I agree. I have been
15 matches
Mail list logo
