On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 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. On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 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. Congratulations, that is a nice backdoor that nobody noticed on the code review. We hope the backdoor will be fixed ASAP, the appropriate security measures will be added and the intruder will be punished appropriately. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature