Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)
Hi,
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 18.,
Sze, 22:47):
>
>
> Dear Debian:
>
...
> Init System Diversity
> =====================
..
> Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to move forward. Perhaps it's just
> that I haven't talked to someone I need to. Perhaps someone will read
> this, and let me know that if I'd included them, we could get the right
> skills and authority engaged. I'll feel embarrassed and we'll all move
> on if that's the case. But I think we may be approaching a point where
> we need to poll the project--to have a GR and ask ourselves how
> committed we are to the different parts of this init diversity
> discussion. Reaffirming our support for sysvinit and elogind would be
> one of the options in any such GR. If that option passed, we'd expect
> all the maintainers involved to work together or to appoint and empower
> people who could work on this issue. It would be fine for maintainers
> not to be involved so long as they did not block progress. And of
> course we would hold the discussions to the highest standards of
> respect.
>
> Things may have changed since our last GR on the issue. There are 1033
> non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a service unit without an
> init.d script [7]. The false positive rate seems high especially for
> packages that break their systemd integration. There's been discussion
> on debian-devel about moving to using service units as the default
> rather than init scripts [8].
>
> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is
> time to move on. We could move away from init scripts as the default
> representation. We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite
> the same thing but is related). That would leave non-linux ports in an
> unfortunate position. But right now there are no non-linux ports in the
> main archive. So perhaps we don't even care about that. Again, a
> change, but a change that we can ask ourselves if we are ready to make.
I would like to just remind ourselves that in WSL and Docker
containers systemd is not running as the init system and systemd
services can't be started easily but init.d scripts can be.
There is very significant interest from users to run services easily
in those and other similar environments and dropping init.d scripts
would make their life much harder.
I do see that maintaining init.d scripts is work but speaking for
myself I'm happy to maintain them
in my packages even when I use those packages only with systems running systemd.
My two cents is that in init system diversity decisions please
consider the environments where none of our packaged init systems are
running, but which are perfectly capable to run useful services.
Cheers,
Balint
...
> [7]:
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script.html
> [8]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87h86qvh1q.fsf@proton.d.airelinux.org
...
PS: I marked #856268 as wontfix before sending this email to debian-devel.
https://balintreczey.hu/blog/my-debian-devel-pledge
Reply to: