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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On 2014-10-16 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
>> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
>> for seconds.  This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
>> proposed by Matthew Vernon in March:
>>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00000.html
>> and the substantive text is that which was drafted for the purposes of
>> the technical committee's vote (where they decided not to pass a
>> resolution on the subject).
>> IMO developments since March show that the concerns put forward then
>> were well-founded.  Following discussions elsewhere including -devel I
>> have received enough offers of seconds by private email.
> I'm sorry to drag you into this now, but I don't want to end up
> perhaps passing a GR and then have an argument about its meaning.

Hi Ian,

While I appreciate that this is a very important issue for a lot of
people, I am deeply concerned by the point in time it is revived.

  _*We have less than 3 weeks till the Jessie freeze starts!*_

Even if you got the DPL shorting the GR by 2 weeks[1], it is still
highly unlikely that the GR will be completed /prior/ to the freeze.

>> 2. Loose coupling of init systems
>>   [...]
> To make this a concrete example, the intent of this text is:
> The GR says that it would be a bug for GNOME not to be installable
> without systemd, even on Linux.  Uninstallability would normally be an	
> RC bug.  The GR says that this uninstallability bug is not less severe
> just because it is limited to non-systemd setups.  Therefore, GNOME
> depending on systemd is an RC bug.
> Is that how the release team would interpret these paragraphs of the
> GR ?  If not, can you please suggest a clarification ?  One option
> would be to include this clarification in the GR text as an example.
> Ian.

Honestly, I am interpreting this as a ticking time bomb under the freeze.

Who exactly is volunteering to implement this GR if it goes through?
Taking GNOME as a hypothetical example[2], suppose it was uninstallable
without systemd and the GNOME maintainers say "We do not want to
implement this GR"[3].

Then you leave us with a "per GR-defined RC buggy" default desktop from
day one of the freeze and no one to clean it up.
  Be advised that I would very much be inclined to "jessie-ignore" such
issues, if such stalemates end up as blockers for the release.

Beyond that, I would /very much/ like to see guidelines for just "how
much degradation" is "tolerable".  Honestly, I think this should be a
part of the GR text.
  I do not want to end up as "the bad guy" having to enforce this GR
during the freeze, when I most at all really do not want this GR to
affect Jessie at all.


[1] Which he can per §4.2.3 and §4.2.4.

[2] And a somewhat bad one since GNOME is actually is installable
without systemd per

[3] Which is their right per §2.1.1:

"""[...] A person who does not want to do a task which has been
delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. [...]"""

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 54402EE7.4020302@thykier.net">https://lists.debian.org/54402EE7.4020302@thykier.net

Reply to: