Re: Proposed amendment (was: Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian)
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 17:06:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > What I am saying is:
> >
> > Let's allow the Debian system to evolve freely: the result will not be
> > breakage, but systemd as a de facto default.
>
> This argument has been brought up before (indeed, even by me), and has
> been debunked by several people.
I very much disagree this argument has been debunked, I do accept
other people have a different opinion on it though, but there's no
point in discussin this here.
> I am personally convinced that we *do* need a better init system. I
> don't actually care _which_ init system that is, and am contend to leave
> that decision to the people who do. But we should not retain the status
> quo.
>
> We should have made a decision on this subject years ago. The "debate"
> is reducing the quality of our mailing lists, is holding the entire
> project hostage, and we're *still* no closer to an answer. Even the TC
> seems to be having difficulties reaching a decision.
I was letting at least one week pass, to possibly get input from other
people, or from the secretary, and I was/am planning on looking for
sponsors on a revised GR draft tomorrow (including the defer to TC
option and reworded Option B). If there's any conflict with the
running TC resolution, the secretary can point it out before the
vote, if enough people sponsor the GR, of course.
> So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
>
> -----
> If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
> two other Debian Developers, will roll a dice. If the dice comes at rest
> with 1 or 2 facing up, systemd will become the default init system for
> Debian. If the dice comes at rest with 3 or 4 facing up, upstart will
> become the default init system for Debian. If the dice comes at rest
> with 5 or 6 facing up, openrc will become the default init system for
> Debian.
> -----
>
> I am looking for seconds. And no, that's not a joke; at this stage the
> debate is essentially deadlocked, and I am doubtful that the debate will
> *ever* reach a conclusion which will be the best on a technical and/or
> political level. All available options feature some things that the
> others don't, all have downsides, and none of the available options will
> ever be a perfect solution. We could discuss this ad infinitum and end
> up with a non-solution, or we could just bite the bullet and make a
> decision.
>
> At this point, I think any decision is better than no decision, even if
> that "decision" is the throw of a dice.
Ok, given what you mentioned above, your preference is not easily
represented with the current GR draft, and I don't think this
amendment makes much sense (at least to me). You want a change, but
don't care which; in which case I think it would be more appropriate
to let the people who care decide, as you pointed out. I could see a
decision by dice, being questioned as non-transparent, etc. But could
see an option that essentially says (with better wording and all that):
* Switch the init system to something else than sysvinit + sysv-rc.
- a decision for a new init system needs to be made now, letting this
undecided will keep causing frustration and project tension.
- the init system chosen will be the one the project at large has
a preference on, by selecting the winning option among options C-G.
If something along those lines satisfies you, I'm happy to include a
polished version in the GR draft.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: