Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> >
> > The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
> > about whether software may require specific init systems.
> >
> > Which doesn't have this GR rider text in it, and is on the same
> > subject as this GR.
>
> That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> resolutions:
>
> 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
> 28th Feb "we choose not to pass a resolution at the current time
> [ie on the 28th of February] about coupling"
>
> These are not contradictory. In particular, the 28th of February
> resolution should not be read as vacating the 11th of February
> resolution's GR rider, which is what you are suggesting.
I'm not disagreeing that you're allowed to do it, I'm disagreeing
that it's a good idea to do it.
Kurt
Reply to: