Hi Uoti, thanks for your summmary of the situation. On Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2014, Uoti Urpala wrote: > In another mail, Ian said that his interpretation is that the init > system would not only have to be packaged in Debian, but in testing and > not RC buggy. yeah, I found this interpration also "interesting"... (eg. that there is room for interpretaion... I thought "in Debian" ment sid and could be buggy. Now I learn that buggy packages in sid seem to not always be part of Debian... at least not in the context of this amendment.) - interesting and a bit scary. > So even GR proponents agree that software which works with either > systemd or uselessd would be fine. Yet they want to FORBID packaging > such software, unless someone packages and integrates uselessd for > Debian. That's a large amount of work which would be mostly unrelated to > the software running under those systems. And the proponents are not > volunteering to do such work. Exactly. > That's kind of backwards - the practical effect of the GR is pretty much > to require that everything must implement sysv scripts, while there are > init features that should not be considered to be/remain specific to > systemd but sysvinit does not support. For example, any init system that > Debian might want to switch to in the future will support systemd-style > socket activation. Uselessd probably supports it. Of course, support for > socket activation could be implemented on top of sysvinit - but AFAIK > the GR proponents are not volunteering to implement that either. > > Before Debian selected its next init system, there were three that could > reasonably work for a distro like it: sysvinit, Upstart and systemd. > Most of developers and all of tech-ctte agreed that sysvinit is outdated > and it was a choice between Upstart and systemd. Now Upstart is not a > real alternative any more, and no new system has risen to the status of > a credible contender yet. The GR talks about alternative init systems in > general, and tells people that they must support at least two, any two > they like. In practice it allows selecting any two from the set > {systemd, sysvinit}. > > By making the hurdle as high as requiring that the alternative init > systems have actually been packaged and integrated in Debian, the > practical effect of the GR is pretty much "must support sysvinit", tying > Debian down to support an obsolete system (which even the GR proposer > agreed "has many longstanding bugs and deficiences", at least before he > knew that the only remaining alternative was systemd). Exactly. I left these paragraphs thinking that some might read them now, who missed them before. I have nothing to add. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.