Re: On init in Debian
Allison Randal <email@example.com> writes:
> On 03/16/2012 06:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Allison Randal <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Hypothetically, if this went away,
> > > would it have a substantial impact on the decision?
> > Which decision in particular, and by who?
> Anthropologically speaking, folkmoot is […] but I'd say the "decision"
> is more a matter of who volunteers to do what.
> Does that sound about right?
I don't know what you're asking, which is why I asked you for
clarification of what you mean.
You asked “if this [requirement for the Canonical contributor agreement
before accepting contributions in ‘upstart’] went away, would it have a
substantial impact on the decision?” and I don't know what “the
decision” you're referring to is.
There are several being discussed, to be decided by different parties,
as summarized by Lars Wirzenius. Which one are you asking about?
> > If the Canonical contributor agreement were no longer required for
> > contributions to a work, then depending on that work for core Debian
> > features would be significantly less controversial, IMO. Does that
> > answer your question?
> Yes, thanks. So, the contributor agreement is a factor, but not the only
> factor (or even the primary factor).
That's not a good conclusion from what I'm saying. I don't know enough
about the issues that might be relevant for ‘upstart’ in Debian to be
exhaustive; there may be many more, there many be a few more, or there
may be only one.
I'm only pointing out that the contributor agreement requirement imposed
by Canonical is, as you asked, IMO a significant part of the
\ “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
`\ is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__) will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |