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

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



On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > >    For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> > > > >    under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
> > > > >    technically feasible way to do so.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe "currently" needs to be clarified - are you talking about the
> > > > current state of jessie, of wheezy, or something else?
> > > 
> > > I tried to keep changes from the original text (as voted on by the TC)
> > > to the bare minimum.
> > > But, since the intend here is to allow swift upgrades between stable
> > > releases, it should read:
> > > 
> > >   For the jessie release, all software available in Debian 'wheezy' that
> > >   supports being run under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit
> > >   unless there is no technically feasible way to do so.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Lucas,
> > 
> > For clarity, are you formally amending your own text here?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I am expecting other fine-tunings during the next hours/days, so I
> initially wanted to gather those changes in a single amended version.
> But now that you asked the question, yes, please amend the proposal with
> the above change.
> 

Thanks, updated. I want to get the web pages etc updated asap, and post
to DDA. I look forward to any more changes :)

Neil
-- 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: