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

Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:06:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a ??crit :
> > I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has
> > already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals
> > add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy
> > or by TC decisions.
> being more precise would somehow defeat the point of stating that no GR is
> needed, because the way the solution would be expressed, with its
> imperfections, would then become binding.

Maybe instead of:

} Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the
} question has already been resolved and thus does not require a General
} Resolution.

you could say something like:

} Policy on how packages should integrate into the init system is set
} by the policy team, though disputes may be escalated to the technical
} committee as usual. As these procedures have not been exhausted,
} this issue does not require a GR at this time.
} At the time of this GR, current policy on init system integration can
} be found in Debian Policy, section 9.3, 9.4, and 9.11, and development 
} guidelines can be found at:
}    https://wiki.debian.org/systemd/Packaging

(Those are all the references I could find with a quick search. Honestly,
it seems remarkably inadequate... People spending too much time organising
votes to actually document how secondary init systems should work?)

FWIW, I think being non-specific about what the deal with systemd vs
sysvinit vs runit vs upstart vs whatever is a bug (both here and in
-policy too). I think that's stopping me from adding a (redundant)
"seconded!", though I think this is still my preferred option.


Reply to: