Hi,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:32:28AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> At minimum, "X is the default" means "you will get X if you don't take
> any action to avoid doing so". All definitions I can think of seem to
> share that baseline.
> At something like maximum, "X is the default" could be read
On 2019-12-05 at 04:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
>> Reframing -
>>
>> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I
>> mean yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system,
>> but we do have other
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Reframing
> -
>
> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I mean
> yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system, but we do
> have other components in the distribution with multiple or non-portable
>
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:40 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have written this mail To people who seconded Guillem's proposal and
> to some people from the thread. I would particularly like to hear
> your views.
>
> I am considering making a formal variant of Guillem's proposal, which,
> if
Hi Ian,
On Di 03 Dez 2019 13:54:40 CET, Ian Jackson wrote:
* Should I adopt Guillem's framing as a preamble to my own proposal ?
(Should this be a new alternative or a replacement?)
* Would Guillem's framing make a good preamble to Dmitry's option ?
* Or do the supporters of Guillem's
* Guillem Jover [2019-12-02 22:55]:
> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be evaluated
> independently
Guillem, there's a lot of stuff I agree with you on, both in this
email and the proposal you wrote.
What I find strange though is that you acknowledge in this email that
I'm going to make a similar point to Sam's but in a slightly different
way that hopefully will help. (Also, I apologize for sounding rather too
absolute in my initial response to your proposal. There were better ways
of phrasing my concerns.)
Guillem Jover writes:
> I'm actually not sure how
> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
Guillem> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be
Guillem> evaluated independently, and no magic decision tree will
Guillem> ever fix trying to work things out with other people, in
Guillem> good faith, and trying to find
guil...@debian.org wrote:
> * The traditional-only way camp: This group outright rejects things
> like systemd, and other similar technologies. Some of this group was
> part of Debian in the past, but found a new home in Devuan. People
I read all my emails with mutt (which I used to maintain)
9 matches
Mail list logo
