3 ms·

Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee

7 points by akerl_ 13y ago

jlgaddis 13y ago
This is childish bullshit and I'm disappointed that those in charge of (various aspects of) the Debian project are acting this way. Everybody needs to grow up.
- voltagex_ 13y ago
  I'm assuming other distros have the same prolonged arguments about various things, but I agree it's really disappointing.
- dfc 13y ago
  This is what happens when you make sausage in an open-air kitchen. No organization is immune to this behavior; the difference is that most of the time it happens behind closed doors.
crashandburn4 13y ago
Can someone eleborate as to what this is because of? has the chairman of the technical committee made some controversial decisions or something?
- akerl_ 13y ago
  This is connected to a large debate on the future init system of Debian, among other related issues (if packages should be required to support non-default init systems, for one). This is the thread in question: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/threads.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/threads.html
- cwyers 13y ago
  It's a response to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203364
- sandGorgon 13y ago
  To be very specific it is about the "L" option in the init system debate. Basically, Ian was pushing for coupling the question of "which init system" to the "requiring specific init allowed/not allowed " option for packages. This meant that though default would be systemd, a package could not depend on systemd explicitly. Bdale called for votes by choosing to vote for "which init system" first. His justification is here - https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html Fundamentally, since Gnome and KDE have already made the decision to depend explicitly on systemd (and since this was not blocked by the vote), this means that upstart will be almost completely eliminated from Debian.

7 points by akerl_ 13y ago

This is childish bullshit and I'm disappointed that those in charge of (various aspects of) the Debian project are acting this way. Everybody needs to grow up.

voltagex_ 13y ago
I'm assuming other distros have the same prolonged arguments about various things, but I agree it's really disappointing.
dfc 13y ago
This is what happens when you make sausage in an open-air kitchen. No organization is immune to this behavior; the difference is that most of the time it happens behind closed doors.

crashandburn4 13y ago

Can someone eleborate as to what this is because of? has the chairman of the technical committee made some controversial decisions or something?

akerl_ 13y ago
This is connected to a large debate on the future init system of Debian, among other related issues (if packages should be required to support non-default init systems, for one). This is the thread in question: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/threads.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/threads.html
cwyers 13y ago
It's a response to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203364
sandGorgon 13y ago
To be very specific it is about the "L" option in the init system debate. Basically, Ian was pushing for coupling the question of "which init system" to the "requiring specific init allowed/not allowed " option for packages. This meant that though default would be systemd, a package could not depend on systemd explicitly. Bdale called for votes by choosing to vote for "which init system" first. His justification is here - https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html Fundamentally, since Gnome and KDE have already made the decision to depend explicitly on systemd (and since this was not blocked by the vote), this means that upstart will be almost completely eliminated from Debian.