[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org> writes:
> * Paul Tagliamonte (paultag@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > Huh?  Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
>> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system.  It doesn't
>> > overturn it.
>> The fact there's a backdoor that was inserted that allowed him to
>> overturn the TC decision with a GR that mentions the word init is
>> absurd.
> I don't know what you try to make about, but 
> 1. the proposed GR doesn't overturn TCs decision about the default
> Linux init system, but holds that one up and adds something about
> loose coupling of init systems and packages[1]
> 2. the possibility to overturn TCs decision was inserted *by*
> *purpose* with our the common understanding of all TC members that if
> the developers together want to overturn our decision they should be
> able to do so with normal (1:1) majority. This was part of the
> proposals with systemd as Linux default and also with upstart as Linux
> default.

I believe the point of contention is that Ian seems to imply that due to
the way that the wrote the GR clause, *any* GR related to init would
automatically nullify the TC's decision about the default init system --
even if the GR doesn't say anything about the default init
system. Consequently, any GR about init-related issues would now need to
explicity state that it upholds the CTTE's decision for the default init
system. Lacking that, passing of the GR would, as a *side-effect*
nullify the CT decision about the default init. I would be surprised if
this is what the majority ofthe CTTE intended.


Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6  02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Reply to: