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

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

On 20/10/14 at 08:06 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> > > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> > > the vote.
> > > 
> > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question
> > > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution.
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Alternatively, your resolution could state that the current de-facto
> > policy of supporting both systemd and sysvinit (sometimes through
> > systemd-shim) should be kept for Debian jessie, and that deciding
> > on policy beyond jessie is premature at this point.
> Hi Lucas,
> 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.
> This said, let me clarify my understanding of the current situation.
>  - Pepole running GNOME and desktops needing features not found in
>    other init systems will be migrated to systemd during update.

I don't think that's correct. What to do during upgrades is still being
discussed by the TC in #765803, and none of the amendments in the
current GR discuss this.
Also, thanks to the work on systemd-shim, it should be possible to
upgrade from wheezy+GNOME with sysvinit to jessie+GNOME with sysvinit
and systemd-shim. (I just tried, and the dist-upgrade currently fails
to upgrade gnome, but it seems unrelated to init systems issues)

>  - Whether other people will be migrated or invited to migrate is in
>    the hands of the release team, who decides which packages are
>    part of Jessie or not.

Well, it's true that the release team can control which packages are fit
for integration into testing. But I don't think that the release team
wants to use (abuse?) that to define our technical policy on init

> The techincal commttee has already given the general direction: we change the
> default init system.  In my opinion, this general direction is how the
> “question” is resolved.  Current decisions on which package depend on what,
> etc, stem from that decision.  As of today I do not think that we need the
> technical comittee, the Policy or a GR to further constrain the work of the
> release team.  Replacing the init system is a major change, and obviously some
> people who used expert skills to set up their system may need their expertise
> to upgrade it.  This, also, is a logical consequence of the TC's decision, and
> I trust the various package maintainers that they are doing their best to make
> the transition as easy as possible.

TTBOMK, the various TC decisions related to this matter are:
#727708 - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/02/msg00005.html
   default init system on Linux is systemd

   no decision on whether software may require specific init systems

   (which I understand as technical advice, and Russ said the same thing
   in <87fvei8t2z.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>)
   For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
   the multiple available init systems in Debian.

I don't think that this fully covers all the questions raised in the
various amendments to this GR. I would very much prefer if your proposal
said something such as:
   Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that most
   of the questions have already been resolved. Resolving the remaining
   questions via a General Resolution is premature at this time.

(I would vote the above first -- I'm unsure about your proposal)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: