Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> So if we assume that upstart wins, would it be acceptable to depend on
> systemd (or vice versa)? We might then get a set called, say, Unity,
> depending on upstart and one called, say, GNOME, depending on systemd,
> which would not be co-installable. Maybe there should be a paragraph
> addressing this?
I have tried to persaude my colleagues that it is necessary to exclude
this possibility, but I don't seem to have succeeded.
> I do like the current phrasing wrt support of the non-default init
> system. But I don't see the question above addressed in it…
You're right, it's not. Some of my proposed stronger wordings for the
Multiple section do address it.
However, with Russ, Bdale and Keith all saying they're opposed to
having this paragraph at all, I would need the support of all the rest
of the TC to include it. Hence my proposal for a compromise which Don
has said he prefers to FD. (And even that may not be enough.)
If you think it's important to explicitly vote on this question then I
am open to putting it on the ballot. (Although the number of options
starts to become rather unwieldy, in practice I expect the TC members
not to have trouble ranking them.)
I also don't know whether Bdale intends to use his casting vote to
force a decision (and if so how far that decision will go), or whether
he'll use it to acknowledge that the TC is split and punt the question
to a GR. But I would guess the former.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
