Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-26): > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 19:50:48) > > Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25): > >> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33) > >>> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for > >>> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing > >>> lists, etc. is going to change anything here. > >> > >> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the > >> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved? > > > > Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, > > no, I frankly do not follow. > > Why do you talk about Jessie? I do not talk about Jessie, I talk about > a bug in Debian and how we can fix it. > > I believe that the only time I mentioned "Jessie" in this thread (till > now) was in a sentence where I explicitly propose to *not* target that > suite if needed to move forward with this bug. Because jessie is what matters now, then we can look at init-less debootstrap, and figure out whether this bug makes sense at all, and if it needs fixing. The only occurrence (I'm aware of) is in init context (forced sysvinit then forced systemd). > Do you understand my question now? No. > >>> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init > >>> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap > >>> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving > >>> area. > >> > >> Thanks for clarifying. I guess [...] that you are referring to "this > >> late in the release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28>. > [mutual apologies snipped] > >> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that > >> in same sentence. I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that > >> sentence quickly at first. > > > > I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I > > really don't follow you there either. > > What I call throwing mud is your introducing dislikes of systemd when > that's not what the bug is about. That's very much not true, see above. > (Heck, the title of the bug is even the opposite - stemming from the era > past 4 months ago when systemd was not the default). Addressed above as well. > Back to my question: Did I guess correctly that your "this late in the > release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28> is what you mean > by "already mentioned"? > > (Again, let me emphasize that I am talking about a bug, not a release > and no specific init system). I do mean that, and mails to debian-boot@, and mails to debian-ctte@, and mails to debian-devel@, and mails to debian-private@. Pick your favourite. > >> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - > >> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently > >> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any > >> possible circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but > >> _after_ the release will be applied as-is with no need for further > >> testing nor discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone > >> else? > > > > No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't > > be considered for jessie, that's all. > > "Either"?!? > > So I guessed wrong further up, or what? Sorry if that's the case - it > was unintentional. Perhaps it helps if you spell out to me what you are > talking about, instead of only making remarks that $stuff has already > been discussed $enough. Seems _your_ $stuff is init-specific and _your_ > $enough is suite-specific, and you then impose that on my $stuff and > $enough which are different ones. Seems you are reading between the > lines of what I wrote and then get upset when I do the same. I've rephrased it (again) in my first paragraph. > You mention Jessie again - that's besides the point! No, that's very relevant, again, see above. > >> If so, then why not release it now for experimental? If because you > >> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing > >> so as an NMU? > > > > To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed, > > whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping > > this bug report once jessie is released. > > You have made it quite clear that you do not believe putting more > attention to this bug is "going to change anything here." How then do > _you_ propose to get it "considered, reviewed, whatever"? All mentioned in the first paragraph. I'll probably stop replying here since I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over and over and over again. Bottom lines: - debootstrap in jessie is not going to get changed WRT this bug. - and since you're not specifically interested in jessie, please don't touch debootstrap in unstable or experimental either; instead, let people figure out what to do with it after the jessie release. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature