Replacing Proposal A

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Replacing Proposal A

Sam Hartman-5


Dear Secretary:

Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the following
amended text; I accept this amendment.

I continue to adjust the discussion period to end November 30.

Based on Holger's recommendation I adjusted the title of the choice.
If you prefer the title you have now, I also accept that.

----------------------------------------


Choice hartmans1: Init deversity is Important

The project issues the following statement describing our current
position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
systemd facilities.  This statement describes the position of the
project at the time it is adopted.  That position may evolve as time
passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions.  The
GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and
cannot come to a consensus.

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be something that the project values.  Every package
should work with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream
to work exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
systemd is available.  It is a important bug (although not a serious
one) when packages should work without systemd but they do not.
According to the NMU guidelines, developers may perform non-maintainer
uploads to fix these bugs.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
and/or will not accept, an init script.


modification of Policy to adopt systemd facilities instead of
existing approaches is discouraged unless an equivalent implementation
of that facility is available for other init systems.
For my reference version a9a4121beb

----------------------------------------


Choice hartmans1: Init deversity is Important

The project issues the following statement describing our current
position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
systemd facilities.  This statement describes the position of the
project at the time it is adopted.  That position may evolve as time
passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions.  The
GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and
cannot come to a consensus.

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be something that the project values.  Every package
should work with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream
to work exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
systemd is available.  It is a important bug (although not a serious
one) when packages should work without systemd but they do not.
According to the NMU guidelines, developers may perform non-maintainer
uploads to fix these bugs.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
and/or will not accept, an init script.


modification of Policy to adopt systemd facilities instead of
existing approaches is discouraged unless an equivalent implementation
of that facility is available for other init systems.

signature.asc (199 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Replacing Proposal A

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> writes:

    Sam> Dear Secretary:

    Sam> Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the
    Sam> following amended text; I accept this amendment.

Sigh, and introduced a typo in the title:






    Sam> Choice hartmans1: Init deversity is Important

How about Init Diversity is Important


Kurt, I think that titles are ultimately under your control.
I give any necessary permissions I might need to give for you to fix the
title.

signature.asc (199 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Replacing Proposal A

Sam Hartman-3
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-5

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> writes:

    Sam> Dear Secretary:

There's another typo in my replacement text for proposal A.

    Sam> support for running without systemd is available.  It is a
    Sam> important bug (although not a serious one) when packages should


That should be *an important bug*
I.E. I got the article wrong.

I propose correcting this change under A.1 (6) assuming no objections in
24-hours (per the requirements of that section).

signature.asc (199 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Replacing Proposal A

Kurt Roeckx
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:34:13PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>     Sam> Dear Secretary:
>
>     Sam> Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the
>     Sam> following amended text; I accept this amendment.
>
> Sigh, and introduced a typo in the title:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Sam> Choice hartmans1: Init deversity is Important
>
> How about Init Diversity is Important
>
>
> Kurt, I think that titles are ultimately under your control.
> I give any necessary permissions I might need to give for you to fix the
> title.

It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was part of
the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4 of the 5
options have 2 titles, one that's under my control, followed
by the text that's not, that also has a title.


Kurt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Replacing Proposal A

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <[hidden email]> writes:

    Kurt> It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was
    Kurt> part of the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4
    Kurt> of the 5 options have 2 titles, one that's under my control,
    Kurt> followed by the text that's not, that also has a title.

What I tried to do was give an initial suggestion of a title to help you
out.
I'd prefer that at least for my options you assume you have control of
the title.

I give permission for that if you choose that option.

Alternatively, if you'd rather interpret this as me proposing and
accepting fixing the typo under A.1 (6), I'm fine with that two.

signature.asc (199 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Replacing Proposal A

Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>     Kurt> It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was
>     Kurt> part of the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4
>     Kurt> of the 5 options have 2 titles, one that's under my control,
>     Kurt> followed by the text that's not, that also has a title.
>
> What I tried to do was give an initial suggestion of a title to help you
> out.
> I'd prefer that at least for my options you assume you have control of
> the title.
>
> I give permission for that if you choose that option.

That's fine for me, I've removed the duplicate titles for your
options.


Kurt