On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 00:34:44 -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I feel the real concerns for kfreebsd porters are in getting patches
accepted, and having some additional resources. For now this may be
accomplished outside the Debian resources, but official recognition might
make things more
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 20:41:43 -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
68k seems to have elected to skip official etch, but also seems to
have met the requirements. Some of the non-dd porters still want an
official etch release.
(They met the requirements after the architecture freeze, and
[ 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
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
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
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
[ 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
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
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
[ 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
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
As I mentioned in my “Reframing”
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 22:50:32 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> That's 5, I'll update everything.
Thanks for this Kurt! Much appreciated!
Regards,
Guillem
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 13:18:06 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I already started yesterday to try to structure and organize my
> thoughts on how I'd express this. I do have today packed until later
> this evening, so I think it's unrealisting that I can propose anything
> today. I
Hi!
Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
Secretary, and what would be the actual procedure to replace the existing
[ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
Hi!
Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
Secretary, and what
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
&g
Hi!
I think the current GR is incorrectly framing the problem at hand,
as if it was just an init system selection. It seems to me, that an
init system is in principle just one of the many technologies we ship
and integrate. But at least when it comes to systemd, choosing that in
detriment to
Hi!
I've been busy late yesterday and today, and not been able to reply
to some of the questions presented. I've got an early flight in a few
hours, so I'm unable to finish the draft reply I've started but which
I plan to send tomorrow (Monday). Sorry about this, but the rushed
timeline is not
Hi!
[ I'm sorry this has gotten a bit long, but I assume I'm going to run out
of time for any discussion, due to the imposed timeline, so I'm trying
to put it all upfront. ]
On Sat, 2019-11-30 at 11:54:09 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > I think the c
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 14:28:44 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This starts informal discussion of a proposed general resolution to
> amend the constitution. I am not seeking sponsors at this time.
> Comments including support or alternatives are welcome. I think this is
> mature enough to seek
20 matches
Mail list logo
