Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
198 messages Options
1234 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 15 novembre 2014 à 16:16 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> The technical committe was asked in #746578 to override the ordering
> of the alternative dependencies on systemd-sysv and systemd-shim to
> prefer the installation of systemd-shim in cases where sysvinit-core
> was already installed.

This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution was
still under discussion.

I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.

--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416249514.4599.15.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Don Armstrong
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2014 à 16:16 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > The technical committe was asked in #746578 to override the ordering
> > of the alternative dependencies on systemd-sysv and systemd-shim to
> > prefer the installation of systemd-shim in cases where sysvinit-core
> > was already installed.
>
> This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution
> was still under discussion.

§6.3.6 does not prevent the CTTE from being presented an issue early. It
stops the CTTE from deciding an issue before a consensus approach has
been attempted. In this particular case, I felt that a consensus
approach had been attempted when this issue came up for a vote. This
particular bug has been open since May, and was discussed at length.

In retrospect, the CTTE may not be working consensus hard enough, and
for that, I'm sorry. Working to achieve consensus is very difficult,
time consuming, and fraught. It takes a huge time commitment, and even
after spending the time, the CTTE may still have to make a decision.

I had naïvely assumed that making what I thought were technically
defensible decisions was good enough. Clearly, enough people in the
project disagree, and want the CTTE to work harder on consensus first
before deciding.

I'm already working to rectify that in the case of #766708, and I'm
certain we could use more help finding consensus with #750135, and maybe
even #741573. If this is something you (or anyone else in the project)
feels strongly about, please, work with the CTTE to help find consensus
on these issues, so we don't actually have to decide.

--
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make
you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once
enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for
anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved.
 -- Craig Dickson in <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117191508.GL4015@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Josselin Mouette
First, Don, I’d like to thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I
have made a serious accusation, and I don’t want it to be an excuse for
a mudfight.

Le lundi 17 novembre 2014 à 11:15 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> §6.3.6 does not prevent the CTTE from being presented an issue early. It
> stops the CTTE from deciding an issue before a consensus approach has
> been attempted. In this particular case, I felt that a consensus
> approach had been attempted when this issue came up for a vote. This
> particular bug has been open since May, and was discussed at length.

There have been discussions, specifically on the debian-ctte mailing
lists, about upgrading to systemd only if the system is not at risk of
breaking sysadmin changes (inittab, custom init scripts).

It strikes me that this possibility has not even been included in the
call for votes for this bug.

> In retrospect, the CTTE may not be working consensus hard enough, and
> for that, I'm sorry. Working to achieve consensus is very difficult,
> time consuming, and fraught. It takes a huge time commitment, and even
> after spending the time, the CTTE may still have to make a decision.

I don’t think it is wrong to want to have a decision at some point, if
the attempts at consensus have failed. Keeping issues in the open for
months, even years, is not going to magically solve them.

It’s not because the resolution is wrong, either. Of course, my opinion
is that it is wrong, and that it is going to rain fire on us when
upgraded systems do not behave like freshly installed ones. But the
point of making decisions is that sometimes they are wrong, and we
should be able to deal with whatever fixing is required later.

The problem here is that the CTTE gives the feeling of having been
played. The same person escalated the problem to the CTTE, framed it
into a fake dichotomy, proposed a resolution that ignored the ongoing
discussions and alternative proposals, and rushed a vote.

Maybe this feeling is unfounded. Maybe all members of the CTTE genuinely
believe that there were no other acceptable proposal, after carefully
examining the issue and the consequences of all scenarios. If this is
the case, we might have a serious communication problem. Because either
way, we have a problem of trust that #746578 is not going to improve.

> I had naïvely assumed that making what I thought were technically
> defensible decisions was good enough. Clearly, enough people in the
> project disagree, and want the CTTE to work harder on consensus first
> before deciding.

I don’t think it has to be the CTTE’s role to build consensus from
nothing. But when genuine attempts are being made, constitution §6.3.6
should be honored.

> I'm already working to rectify that in the case of #766708, and I'm
> certain we could use more help finding consensus with #750135, and maybe
> even #741573. If this is something you (or anyone else in the project)
> feels strongly about, please, work with the CTTE to help find consensus
> on these issues, so we don't actually have to decide.

#741573 is a clear-cut case where consensus has been achieved and a
single maintainer is deliberately acting against it. After that, what
should have been an obvious CTTE decision has been derailed into a
lengthy debate on the philosophy of menu systems.

When a trivial request takes so much time to decide on, and a complex
one is rushed into a hasty resolution, well, maybe that explains the
trust issue I was talking about.

Cheers,
--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416255656.6444.34.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 17 novembre 2014 à 21:20 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> It’s not because the resolution is wrong, either. Of course, my opinion
> is that it is wrong, and that it is going to rain fire on us when
> upgraded systems do not behave like freshly installed ones.

Ansgar pointed to me on IRC that there is another dependency chain
taking care of upgrades, making the “raining fire” comment an obvious
overstatement.

--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416257119.6444.41.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Dominik George-2
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
Hi,

> Le lundi 17 novembre 2014 à 11:15 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>> §6.3.6 does not prevent the CTTE from being presented an issue early. It
>> stops the CTTE from deciding an issue before a consensus approach has
>> been attempted. In this particular case, I felt that a consensus
>> approach had been attempted when this issue came up for a vote. This
>> particular bug has been open since May, and was discussed at length.
>
> There have been discussions, specifically on the debian-ctte mailing
> lists, about upgrading to systemd only if the system is not at risk of
> breaking sysadmin changes (inittab, custom init scripts).
I do not see why this issue even had to be discussed. It looks obvious
to me that a package should avoid changing or breakign anything outside
it if it is not necessary. The CTTE's decision therefore is the only
reasonable one, and I wonder why realising this needed the CTTE.

That said, good job, technical committee, for saving users from touching
a running system :)!

Cheers,
Nik


signature.asc (906 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Steve Langasek
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 09:20:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > In retrospect, the CTTE may not be working consensus hard enough, and
> > for that, I'm sorry. Working to achieve consensus is very difficult,
> > time consuming, and fraught. It takes a huge time commitment, and even
> > after spending the time, the CTTE may still have to make a decision.

> I don’t think it is wrong to want to have a decision at some point, if
> the attempts at consensus have failed. Keeping issues in the open for
> months, even years, is not going to magically solve them.

> It’s not because the resolution is wrong, either. Of course, my opinion
> is that it is wrong, and that it is going to rain fire on us when
> upgraded systems do not behave like freshly installed ones.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that this in any way causes upgraded
systems to be have differently from freshly-installed ones?  The only thing
this dependency swap affects is whether installing a DE on top of an
existing system which has deliberately opted for a non-default init causes a
different init to be chosen.

This is not about the choice of init for upgraded systems, /at all/.

--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[hidden email]                                     [hidden email]

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Noel David Torres Taño
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
On Monday, 17 de November de 2014 20:20:56 Josselin Mouette escribió:
> First, Don, I’d like to thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I
> have made a serious accusation, and I don’t want it to be an excuse for
> a mudfight.

The point is not that you have made a serious accusation. It is your right to
do so, if you feel something is wrong. I would even say that it is your duty.

The point is that you requested (you 'urged') maintainers to ignore a CTTE
decision that has not been overturned. This is not being civil.

I strongly support the CTTE decision of systemd being our default, as well as
this one. In fact, any CTTE decision. And if I someday find that a specific CTTE
decision is wrong, I'll work to overturn it, either by providing further
evidence or by convincing somebody of some aspect that they may not have seen.
But not by requesting maintainers ignore a decision.

I have had a hard moment while writing this, because what I really wanted to
write was in a very different mood, but I do not want (another) mudfight.

Keep Debian civil. Do what the CTTE has ruled, and if you feel it is wrong,
raise the case again, or try to overturn the CTTE decision by the correct
means. Have you tried to grab the Secretary's opinion about if the
Constitution has really been ignored?

I think it has not been, and you think it has, and we can agree that we
disagree, but The Right Thing here is not what you did.

Regards

er Envite

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Michael Banck
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
Hi Josselin,

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:38:34PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le samedi 15 novembre 2014 à 16:16 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > The technical committe was asked in #746578 to override the ordering
> > of the alternative dependencies on systemd-sysv and systemd-shim to
> > prefer the installation of systemd-shim in cases where sysvinit-core
> > was already installed.
>
> This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution was
> still under discussion.
>
> I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.

This list is for technical discussions of the Debian distribution, your
mail is off-topic here.

If you have issues with the technical committe and/or want to reach the
systemd maintainers, let me know off-list and I can provide you with
contact details.


Cheers,

Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117220157.GE30569@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
> This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution
> was still under discussion.
>
> I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.

I fully agree. This whole vote has been a farce and the result should
not be adopted. We haven't even waited for the results of the GR.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546A8809.6070606@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Christoph Anton Mitterer-2
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 00:43 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> > being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution
> > was still under discussion.
> >
> > I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.
>
> I fully agree. This whole vote has been a farce and the result should
> not be adopted.

Just had to wonder... what happens to DDs who intentionally and clearly
break the constitution or who publicly state to no longer feel bound by
it?


Cheers.

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Michael Banck
Hi Christoph,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:24:13AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Just had to wonder... what happens to DDs who intentionally and clearly
> break the constitution or who publicly state to no longer feel bound by
> it?

This mailing list is a technical list and your message/question is
off-topic.  Kindly reask it on another list, or another forum
altogether.


Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141118002654.GG30569@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Christoph Anton Mitterer-2
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 01:26 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> This mailing list is a technical list and your message/question is
> off-topic.  Kindly reask it on another list, or another forum
> altogether.
I wouldn't say that the two posts I was particularly replying to were in
any way more technical.
Or is publicly asking to break the constitution is more technical than
asking what happens if someone intentionally does so?

Plus, d-d is described as "Development of Debian", not as "technical
only development of debian) and it seems to be pretty common to have
lengthy political discussions here.

Cheers,
Chris.

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Andrey Rahmatullin-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Anton Mitterer-2
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:24:13AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:

> > > This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> > > being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution
> > > was still under discussion.
> > >
> > > I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.
> >
> > I fully agree. This whole vote has been a farce and the result should
> > not be adopted.
>
> Just had to wonder... what happens to DDs who intentionally and clearly
> break the constitution or who publicly state to no longer feel bound by
> it?
An email to DAM who is a DPL delegate with powers to expel people from the
project.

--
WBR, wRAR

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#769747: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Martin Pitt-3
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
Hello all,

Josselin Mouette [2014-11-17 19:38 +0100]:
> This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution was
> still under discussion.
>
> I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.

TBH, I think this was blown way out of proportion. I already switched
the dependencies around yesterday in git. It's a rather harmless
change after all -- a no-op for any existing system, regardless of
whether they have systemd-sysv or sysvinit installed. And on upgrades,
libpam-systemd is *not* meant to be the package that decides which
init system you end up with IMHO -- that should be the job of a
meta-package like "init" or other means (and there's still a pending
discussion whether and how to upgrade existing wheezy machines to
systemd).

If other systemd maintainers want to keep discussing this dependency
issue, please do (but it seems we are just losing them in dangerous
quantities!), but I see absolutely no point in this personally.

Martin

--
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141118052952.GB3322@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#769747: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Sjoerd Simons
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 06:29 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Josselin Mouette [2014-11-17 19:38 +0100]:
> > This decision has been made in gross violation of constitution §6.3.6,
> > being summoned to override a maintainer’s choice while the solution was
> > still under discussion.
> >
> > I urge the systemd maintainers not to take it into account.
>
> TBH, I think this was blown way out of proportion. I already switched
> the dependencies around yesterday in git. It's a rather harmless
> change after all -- a no-op for any existing system, regardless of
> whether they have systemd-sysv or sysvinit installed. And on upgrades,
> libpam-systemd is *not* meant to be the package that decides which
> init system you end up with IMHO -- that should be the job of a
> meta-package like "init" or other means (and there's still a pending
> discussion whether and how to upgrade existing wheezy machines to
> systemd).
>
> If other systemd maintainers want to keep discussing this dependency
> issue, please do (but it seems we are just losing them in dangerous
> quantities!), but I see absolutely no point in this personally.

Yeah, the switch is entirely fine, thanks for doing the change. At worst
it's inelegant to have to do this in order to trick the dependency
systems into doing the right thing, maybe we manage to find a nicer
solution for jessie+1.

However I don't really the path that lead to the vote and the overruling
(as i really don't think such drastic measures were needed), but that's
a completely different discussion that clearly needs to be held
seperately from discussing any specific technial outcome including this
one.
--
Sjoerd Simons <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416295681.2480.3.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Lucas Nussbaum-4
In reply to this post by Don Armstrong
On 17/11/14 at 11:15 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:

> §6.3.6 does not prevent the CTTE from being presented an issue early. It
> stops the CTTE from deciding an issue before a consensus approach has
> been attempted. In this particular case, I felt that a consensus
> approach had been attempted when this issue came up for a vote. This
> particular bug has been open since May, and was discussed at length.
>
> In retrospect, the CTTE may not be working consensus hard enough, and
> for that, I'm sorry. Working to achieve consensus is very difficult,
> time consuming, and fraught. It takes a huge time commitment, and even
> after spending the time, the CTTE may still have to make a decision.
>
> I had naïvely assumed that making what I thought were technically
> defensible decisions was good enough. Clearly, enough people in the
> project disagree, and want the CTTE to work harder on consensus first
> before deciding.
This is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I'd like to point
out that if we look at Debian's history, the TC has been alternating
between being perceived as "too much focused on consensus => takes too
long to make decisions" and "not seeking consensus enough, makes
decisions too quickly".

For example, if we look at recent (FSVO recent) history, there was only
one TC resolution passed between 2009-09-04 and 2012-02-05 (the lilo
one, #587886). And I remember quite a lot of discussions where people
were complaining about the TC not making decisions quickly enough, on
#573745 (python maintainership) for example.

I think that one important thing to remember is that the TC is asked to
make difficult decisions, and that it is often hard to find the right
compromise between spending more time seeking consensus, and making a
decision sooner.

I am not saying that the current way the TC works is perfect, but I
think that we should be careful, when trying to improve the situation,
not to jump to the opposite problems.

> I'm already working to rectify that in the case of #766708, and I'm
> certain we could use more help finding consensus with #750135, and maybe
> even #741573. If this is something you (or anyone else in the project)
> feels strongly about, please, work with the CTTE to help find consensus
> on these issues, so we don't actually have to decide.

+1

Lucas

signature.asc (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Troy Benjegerdes
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 09:45:19PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 17 novembre 2014 à 21:20 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > It’s not because the resolution is wrong, either. Of course, my opinion
> > is that it is wrong, and that it is going to rain fire on us when
> > upgraded systems do not behave like freshly installed ones.
>
> Ansgar pointed to me on IRC that there is another dependency chain
> taking care of upgrades, making the “raining fire” comment an obvious
> overstatement.

The fire will rain when there's a security hole in systemd or it's
alternatives. Just do your best to try to make the fresh installed system
be the one that doesn't have the next remotely exploitable bug in bash.

Someone will find a hole in something, and there will be fire when sysadmins
have to upgrade in the middle of the night and now are running systemd
instead of what they are used to. There's no particularly good way around
this.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes                 'da hozer'                  [hidden email]
7 elements      earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul        grid.coop

      Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
         nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141122011336.GB29130@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
On 22.11.2014 02:13, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:

> Someone will find a hole in something, and there will be fire when sysadmins
> have to upgrade in the middle of the night and now are running systemd
> instead of what they are used to.

Well, in that case, I'd say a rain of fire isn't entirely what's going
to happen here ... would be more like a rain of transphasic torpedos ...

I think, the latest decision was really bad. Not because I personally
dont like Lennartware, but because we should leave people the choice.
At lot of people have lots of reasons why they never ever wont let
systemd on their machines, and would even switch whole datacenters
to Gentoo, LFS or BSD, before accepting systemd.

Most of the people I know personally (and that are quite a lot), many
of them traditional *nix operators, integrators, developers from
embedded to enterprise, people who're maintaining missing criticial
systems, large datacenters, etc, give a clear and absolute NO to
systemd. Can't tell how representative that is, but my gutts tell me
Debian will immediately loose 30..50% user base, if systemd becomes
mandatory (or even worse: silently injects it via an upgrade).

That would be desastreos, and directly lead into a fork (in fact,
the preparations for that are already on the way).

I think it would be very wise having a fundamental decision, that:

a) individual (usual) packages do _not_ depend on a specific init
   system (eg. making the systemd-specific stuff has to optional)
b) we will continue to provide the existing alternatives, including
   fresh installation (choosable at installation time, or separate
   installer images)
c) the init system will never be switched w/o _explicit_ order
   by the operator
d) this decision stands until explicitly revoked


cu
--
Enrico Weigelt,
metux IT consulting
+49-151-27565287


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547495E0.7040306@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Philip Hands
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 22.11.2014 02:13, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:

> ... we should leave people the choice.
       
de·fault (d-fôlt)
n.
  a. /Computer Science/

     A particular setting or value for a variable that is assigned
     automatically by an operating system and remains in effect unless
     canceled or overridden by the operator.

How is it that Debian changing the default for something on some of our
architectures has spawned the rumour that we've travelled back in time
and slaughtered all the ancestors of all the authors of all alternatives
to that default?

Cheers, Phil.
--
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

attachment0 (834 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution

Matthias Urlichs-3
In reply to this post by Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Hi,

Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult:
> people who're maintaining missing criticial systems, large datacenters,
> etc, give a clear and absolute NO to systemd.

Care to tell us why? Other than "ugh, it's written by Lennart"??

> Debian will immediately loose 30..50% user base

Could we PLEASE stop the systemd FUD now?

--
-- Matthias Urlichs


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141125160359.GB6563@...

1234 ... 10