Le mercredi, 26 novembre 2014, 09.21:00 The Wanderer a écrit : > On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : > >> On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > >> > >> The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow > >> modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision > > > > Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the > > winning option didn't, for example. > > But without the options which did, would there have been any point in > the vote's taking place at all? That's kind of what the winning option said: no, there was no point in having the vote in the first place, our existing procedures are working just fine. (+ "we don't want to be setting Technical Policy through GR"). > >> Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, > >> 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent > >> the kind of problems posed by systemd: > > > > 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was > > designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init > > at the time, nothing more. > > While this may be true... > > > Putting some "was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd" in > > this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. > > ...this is, itself, misleading. Indeed, sorry for the copy-paste typo. I'm saying that §9.11 was not designed for anything else than ensuring that the Debian archive would keep working with the default init system of the time, nothing more. Reading between its lines to try convincing readers that it was "designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd" is dishonest, IMHO. Feel free to go ask the policy editors if you disagree. Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.