Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Putting the "notes and rubric" section first might make this clearer
> > > for you to see, but it would make the whole GR text much less clear to
> > > read because it would start with several paragraphs of procedural
> > > palaver.
> > I understand your point. But it feels to me like an abuse of the
> > CTs decision because it's on a related but different subject. I
> > would prefer that it would just make a position statement that
> > doesn't have an effect on the CTs decision.
> I don't think it's an abuse. That GR override clause was written by
> me. I specifically drew it widely precisely so that, amongst other
> things, a GR could answer questions that the TC has failed to answer.
> Surely the question is simply whether this GR is indeed "on init
> systems". Clearly it is. Therefore the GR rider is engaged.
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.