On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:22:14PM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > > Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so > > > I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have > > > any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to > > > individual developers how to do their work and undermines the flexibility > > > of Debian contributors in ways that I think are unnecessary and a little > > > condescending, and requires work be done without identifying anyone who is > > > going to do the work, which is why I voted against it. But it's not some > > > sort of end-run around the previous decision. > > The previous decision does say that it is replaced completely by the > > text of such a position statement and I do note that the proposed GR > > does, very carefully, not refer to systemd as the default. It makes for > > a clumsier construction, which when combined with the level of legal-ish > > arguments being made here, makes me suspicious. > Please don't read anything into the lack of mentioning systemd in my > GR proposal. I in no way intend to undermine their decision that > systemd is the default linux init for jessie. I thought "The TC's > decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie stands > undisturbed." was clear enough. Given the ambiguity about whether this GR vacates the earlier TC decision, I think it would be best to simply include in your GR text a statement that The Debian project reaffirms the decision of the TC to make systemd the default init system for jessie. (Then I suppose if people don't actually want to reaffirm this, they can propose amendments to the contrary; but AFAICS it's better to be explicit here.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature