Hi, First, two points about this subthread: - it started as a private discussion (From Neil, to Ian and myself). Ian "leaked" it to debian-vote@. Ian, I hope that this is just a mistake, and that he will make sure to refrain from leaking private discussions to a public list without authorization. I don't particularly mind in that case, but I don't think that it's a practice that should be considered acceptable. - I originally honestly thought that Ian's proposal was about supporting all alternative init systems. That's why I suggested this summary for his proposal. I apologize for misunderstanding his proposal at the time. On 21/10/14 at 09:33 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:14:44AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 12.17:14 Neil McGovern a écrit : > > > > > Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems > > > > > > > > This is actively misleading in a least four ways: > > > Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about: > > > > Your two proposals don't seem to match "Ian's" to which you're > > responding: > > > > > Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically > > > unfeasible > > > > Ian's doesn't mention sysvinit at all; this would be highly misleading. > > > > > Packages may require a specific init system if technically required > > > > That's not at all the core of "Ian's" proposal in my reading. > > > > That's because they're descriptions for Lucas' amendment. Not according to the quoting in <20141020111714.GA18936@halon.org.uk> ? Anyway, I stand by what I wrote in <20141017202805.GA10561@xanadu.blop.info> (before Ian moved the discussion to -vote@): I consider that an appropriate summary for my proposal is: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory I trust that Kurt and Neil will find something better if they feel it's needed to ensure that the various summaries have homogeneous style in terms of wording. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature