On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ]
Hi!
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
Since this or the other proposol failed to reach the needed amount of
sponsors, the
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org:
My feeling at this stage is that the TC are best placed to make a
decision on the technical merits of the various possible init
replacements and how we might deploy them in Debian. Given that there
is also a political element to this discussion, we could
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:06:12PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
No seconds. Many objections.
The TC has a decision. The flame is finally smoldering out. Can we move
on as a project?
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte
Hello,
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.orgwrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:06:12PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
No seconds. Many objections.
Sorry, I don't see this. Second proposal actually has
On Sat, February 15, 2014 15:06, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
I feel that if the GR results on the quoted above pool would
be different from TC - that may affect other TC decisions.
Ian, would you like to sponsor GR in this form?
PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
With 1000
On 01/28/2014 11:44 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
Option D
* Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available.
- architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch
whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:44:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
Option D
* Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available.
- architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch
whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining
This one time, at band camp, Paul Tagliamonte said:
I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet,
and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically
grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work.
Let the TC do their work. They're coming up
On Ma, 28 ian 14, 07:41:26, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
Hi Guillem,
if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then
Guillem Jover writes ([Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for
Debian):
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
I would consider sponsoring a GR, but like others I would like to see
the TC vote first. And, I strongly suggest you trim
On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
Option D
* Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available.
- architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch
whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default
in the meantime.
- a reimplementation of
On 01/23/2014 07:58 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
Perhaps the way out is to solve the technical problem regarding the Essential
flag so that it is easier to install systemd, upstart or openrc, and defer a
decision untill the call for change comes from enough maintainers of init
scripts saying that
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Hoping that this will help others to understand better what's going on
and know what we are at today.
Thank you for the update, Thomas.
Bdale
pgpGP9stzQaFl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Russ Allbery writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for
Debian):
As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the
project to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
I think we would all
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
That would certainly seem to be the case, but it would be illogical for
a group who is happy to be overridden with a lower requirement to be
prevented from doing so!
Quite.
I think it's perfectly possible for a TC
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
Resolution on a simple majority.
I don't think
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ]
Hi!
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and
I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet,
and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically
grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work.
Let the TC do their work. They're coming up on a vote, and they may even
suggest a GR.
This GR is
Hi,
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
,--- DRAFT GR TEXT ---
A General Resolution to select the default init system for Debian.
Option A
[...]
Option H
If people want to have a GR on the init system, could we please not
entangle two issues in a single vote:
1. Default init system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 01/27/2014 08:39 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for
sponsors now.
please stop wasting people's time and let the TC do their work instead.
Thanks.
- --
Bernd Zeimetz
Very much NOT seconded.
I have way more interesting things to do than becoming an init system
expert; and I would have to become one to be able to vote honestly in
this GR.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
Hi Guillem,
if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then I will
second your GR. In the meantime, it is probably
Le Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:14:41AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or that
system (“vote with the feet”). For the packages where init scripts are a
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:14:41AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or
that
system (“vote
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
-
If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
two other Debian Developers, will roll a dice.[...]
-
I am looking for seconds. And no, that's not
Before I forget, there's one thing I wanted to say about this:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
Option A
[...]
Option B
[...]
Option C
[...]
Option D
[...]
Option E
[...]
Option F
[...]
Option G
[...]
Please don't do that. If you want to propose a GR,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:31:50PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
-
If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
two other Debian Developers, will
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 17:06:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
What I am saying is:
Let's allow the Debian system to evolve freely: the result will not be
breakage, but systemd as a de facto default.
This argument has
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
But if the technical
committee fails to make a decision, and if a GR does the same, we'd end
up with no decision.
No. __If__ that happens, we'd end up with a decision keep the status quo, aka
keep sysv as the default init system. That
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 17:06:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
-
If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
two other Debian Developers,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
But if the technical
committee fails to make a decision, and if a GR does the same, we'd end
up with no decision.
No. __If__ that happens, we'd end up with a
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 18:15:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
Ok, given what you mentioned above, your preference is not easily
represented with the current GR draft, and I don't think this
amendment makes much sense (at least to
Le Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6))
Hi Guillem,
I agree that calling the TC
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:58:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
been made to reach
Le Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:26:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:58:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
We have a default init system that has the Essential flag, and it is
impossible to switch to alternatives without going through a very strong
warning.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or that
system (“vote with the feet”). For the packages where init scripts are a
limitation, just depend on systemd, upstart, openrc, or combinations of them,
[ Given the tone in this mail, I'd usually not bother replying, but I
guess it's my duty given the proposed changes to the draft. ]
Hi,
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 16:53:12 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
I think you are missing the following options and have only listed options
which you consider
On 19/01/14 03:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:
In general, I've been quite unhappy with the excessive invocation of
the TC recently, with developers seeming to view this as a first,
rather than absolute last, resort.
[...]
Constitutionally, a GR is the last resort in that it can overrule every
]] Daniel Pocock
E.g. if we choose systemd, who will implement all the things that need
to be changed outside the Gnome related packages? What will immediately
fail if not adapted to systemd?
In general, nothing should fail. sysvinit scripts are first class
citizens in the systemd world
On 13461 March 1977, Guillem Jover wrote:
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate
Quite the contrary, it was the right thing to do. This issue will not
get any easier or more clearcut the longer we let it wait and see if
maybe the
Guillem Jover writes (GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, [...]
Perhaps surprisingly, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a GR
for this question.
My reasons are quite different
I was going to write something longer about this, and I may still
depending on whether I feel like I have a useful way to present the
thoughts that are mingling in my head. But I wanted to at least briefly
support Ian's point about a GR possibly being a more appropriate
decision-making process if
Russ Allbery writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I do think that the proper process is for the TC to make a decision at
this stage. The way I read the constitution and the context is that it
is the TC's job
Hi,
dropping the useless cc: and not commenting on the thread topic at all so far
yet...
On Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project
to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
I agree. I think
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:04:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
technical ones.
I would gladly vote an option that says: technically, we trust what the
TC
Enrico Zini writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
A constructive thing that we may do as a project to address the
political side of the matter, is to add to our technical decision a list
of things that we wish our upstreams would do to make all our lives
easier
Hi Guillem,
I think you are missing the following options and have only listed options
which you consider sensible or which you loath:
h.) support them all equally: systemd, upstart, sysv and openrc and keep sysv
as the default
i.) support them all equally: systemd, upstart, sysv and openrc
Hi Steve!
On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 19:16:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem
to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their
solutions within Debian
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:32:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
And yes, when I mentioned seeking wide deployment, I meant archive
wide support. Let me try to give an analogy to clarify what I mean.
Say, the GNU/kFooBar porters might have invested lots of effort into
their kernel, toolchain and
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:36:25AM +0100]:
Where do they decide the global direction for the project? They have a
technical decision to do. Sure it has a wide impact, but global
direction is something different than just an init thingie.
Also, seeing how much involvement
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
On Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project
to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
I agree. I think that would be quite bad.
care to explain why
Hi Ian!
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:04:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Guillem Jover writes (GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, [...]
Perhaps surprisingly, I am not entirely opposed
Holger Levsen writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
care to explain why you think so?
Russ has given an answer which I agree with.
But more fundamentally for me: if the project as a whole votes to
overrule the TC on this question, but by a constitutionally
insufficient
Guillem Jover writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:04:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
technical ones
Hi Enrico!
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 14:56:27 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:04:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
technical ones.
I
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
But as it stands I think I'm a bit conflicted here, on one hand the
whole point of the GR is because I don't agree the TC should be
_deciding_ on this, the project should, but on the other I acknowledge
there's people that for whatever reason want to
[ M-F-T set to debian-vote@l.d.o, not seeking sponsors yet see below. ]
Hi!
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6)), because the TC seems
to have been
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[ M-F-T set to debian-vote@l.d.o, not seeking sponsors yet see below. ]
Hi!
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
been made to reach
Hi Guillem,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem
to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their
solutions within Debian (or, with the exception of upstart, even
updating the policy
63 matches
Mail list logo
