[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: runinit-run, releaseability thereof

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:07:59PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:54:12PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Release team: if you think this bug makes runit-run unreleaseable,
> > > please indicate as such; otherwise I think it's reasonable for the
> > > maintainer to downgrade the severity of this bug if the maintainer
> > > feels that it is releasable. [If there's some disagreement as to
> > > whether it is releasable or not, that technical decision can of course
> > > be refered back to the ctte.]
> > 
> > After some discussion, we feel that the fact that runit-run can be
> > installed, and unless further manual action is taken, it will make the
> > computer unbootable to indicate that the package is unreleaseable.
> This is not a fact, it's a false assertion unless you have a different
> understanding of "unbootable" than me.  And it's not what this very bug
> report is about.  I've yet to see a bug report against runit-run about
> "unbootable" while the package is included in the past two Debian
> releases sarge and lenny, and squeeze and sid.
> After installing runit-run the system boots into "sysinit" by running
> /etc/init.d/rcS and provides getties.  Other init scripts are not run by
> default.  Because of that, the administrator needs to be informed before
> installing this package to migrate essential services before rebooting,
> like sshd if local access is not possible.

That still sounds like the package is unreleaseable. If you want to
re-assign this back to tech-ctte to override the release team's
decision, feel free to do so.

i get an error... i forget what it is ... but definitely an error, well, maybe
a warning... or an informational message... but definitely an output
 - Verbatim quote from #debian, irc.freenode.net, Sat Jan 12 00:31:16 GMT 2008

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: