Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
From: Iain Lane <laney@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:17:12 +0100
Message-id: <20141017111712.GB17553@iota>
In-reply-to: <20141017110003.GA17553@iota>
References: <21567.57029.724173.958520@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20141017074416.GA2520@xanadu.blop.info> <20141017110003.GA17553@iota>

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:00:03PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> Also, what does "currently" ("already" in my text) mean? In stable or
> testing?

Okay, I see <20141017110531.GA11823@xanadu.blop.info> now.

-- 
Iain Lane                                  [ iain@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney@ubuntu.com ]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to:

References:
- Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
  - From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
  - From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>
- Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
  - From: Iain Lane <laney@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Next by Date: Re: [RFC] Alternative proposal: reaffirm upstream and maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Previous by thread: Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Next by thread: Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread