[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 20/10/14 at 14:47 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
>     Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
>     Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
>     Joey> currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
>     Joey> to the TC.  It could implicitly or explicitly reaffirm both
>     Joey> recent TC decisions on init systems.
> I'd support very strongly something like this, no more than one or two
> more paragraphs like the above.

I think that this is what Charles' proposal does now.

And my personal hope is that it will be the winning option, preferably
with FD beating all three other options.

However, I don't plan to withdraw my own proposal. Given that we are
going to vote anyway, it will be useful to have a representative set of
options for the general technical directions that Debian could take on
this set of questions, in order to estimate what the project wants.

During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small
legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the
default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able
to serve as input in future TC discussions on similar/related topics.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: