User Survey

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 12:10 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:

> also sprach Scott James Remnant <scott at netsplit.com> [2006.09.03.0324 +0200]:
> > How would we go about developing it within Debian?  Given that we've
> > already reached the block that sysvinit needs modification to make it
> > replaceable, and there are also about a dozen packages that need their
> > dependencies on sysvinit (which date back to a legacy Debian policy
> > change) removed.
> 
> Do you have a list of what's needed? I've already taken the first
> step...
> 
Sure, the following changes were made to sysvinit:

 * Split the "utilities" out into sysvutils.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001504.html

 * Make sysvutils Essential, and remove the Essential tag from sysvinit
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001520.html

The following packages had legacy dependencies on sysvinit (due to some
invoke/update-rc.d change years ago) removed:

 * bluez-utils
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001502.html

 * console-tools
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001503.html

 * lm-sensors
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001511.html

 * modutils
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001510.html

 * nfs-utils
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001508.html

 * nis
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001509.html

 * genpower
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001512.html

 * kbd (patch got screwed up by a mom bug, fixed the bug)

 * powertweak
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001514.html

 * sysv-rc-conf
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001516.html

 * welcome2l
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/2006-August/001515.html

> > Also how would we co-ordinate the changes to the initscripts
> > package, given that Debian is in a base freeze and these are
> > required for the edgy release of Ubuntu?
> 
> I am not talking about now and here, and would be perfectly happy to
> aim for post-etch.
> 
Ok, does that mean you want to delay any work on upstart in Debian for
post-etch?
 
I still think that an interim archive would be an idea.  Perhaps someone
would like to set one up?  Marco?

> > Of course, if those obstacles can be overcome, there's also no
> > reason it couldn't be developed "in Ubuntu" and sync'd into
> > Debian.
> 
> No. Though doing it this way seems the wrong way around to me. Maybe
> that's just me.
> 
*shrug* either way, this is just playing politics at the moment -- which
seems rather childish.

I asked you to package upstart for Debian because in the past you've
expressed both an interest in init, and you've also expressed an
interest in helping ensure that work done in Ubuntu makes it into
Debian.

Frankly turning around, throwing your toys out of the pram, and claiming
that the work should be done in Debian in the first place was not the
response I expected from you.  You know better than that.

Ubuntu is its own distribution, this is not going to change.  I am not a
Debian Developer, so couldn't upload to Debian if I wanted to, this is
also not going to change.

I was somewhat hoping you'd be able to lead the way in showing how
Debian developers can related to Ubuntu developers, and ensure that the
good work Ubuntu do makes it into Debian -- instead you appear to be
playing games?

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20060903/7c2e75b7/attachment.pgp