Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> While I appreciate that this is a very important issue for a lot of
> people, I am deeply concerned by the point in time it is revived.
> _*We have less than 3 weeks till the Jessie freeze starts!*_
I agree that the timing is very regrettable. You'd have to ask other
people why they didn't second the identical GR in March.
> Honestly, I am interpreting this as a ticking time bomb under the freeze.
>
> Who exactly is volunteering to implement this GR if it goes through?
> Taking GNOME as a hypothetical example[2], suppose it was uninstallable
> without systemd and the GNOME maintainers say "We do not want to
> implement this GR"[3].
That would depend how easy it would be to fix.
If the fix is easy (for example, the reason it's uninstallable is
because of a dependency declared for political reasons but without
which the actual operation is OK) then it would be a simple matter to
NMU it.
If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team
mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is
removed from jessie.
I mention the third option not because I think it's what we should do
right now, but to point out that I am not saying that the GNOME team
(or indeed GNOME upstream) have to do any work. No-one has to do any
work, but if the work goes undone, there are of course consequences to
the affected packages. If problems persist into jessie+1 I _would_
expect us to seriously consider removing GNOME.
> Then you leave us with a "per GR-defined RC buggy" default desktop from
> day one of the freeze and no one to clean it up.
Of course I would expect those choosing the default desktop to pick
one that wasn't RC-buggy.
> Be advised that I would very much be inclined to "jessie-ignore" such
> issues, if such stalemates end up as blockers for the release.
Would it help if we added a note to the GR explicitly saying that this
is what we expect ?
Something like:
Given the late passage of this resolution, we expect that
intractable bugs which are RC by virtue only of this resolution
will be tagged by the release team as `jessie-ignore'.
?
> Beyond that, I would /very much/ like to see guidelines for just "how
> much degradation" is "tolerable". Honestly, I think this should be a
> part of the GR text.
>
> I do not want to end up as "the bad guy" having to enforce this GR
> during the freeze, when I most at all really do not want this GR to
> affect Jessie at all.
I'm afraid that explaining guidelines for that seems obviously
impractical to me.
But the backstop is that uninstallability, or complete failure to work
on any system, is obviously RC. Lack of working power management or
broken suspend would be very annoying but probably not RC.
Ian.
Reply to: