Re: init-select
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> (2014-01-03):
>>> It is often far more ideal when the TC chooses to not act. TC action
>>> means that the project is somehow dysfunctional.
>>>
>>> init-select is a very simple technical solution to a very large social
>>> problem.
>>
>> Having to pick an init system is *not* a social problem.
>
> All TC decisions are attempts at the resolution of social problems.
> They only consider issues that involve the social disagreement between
> at least two people. The fact that the disagreement is happens to be
> over a technical topic does not eliminate the social aspect.
>
>> Trying to support several init systems is *not* in the best interest of
>> a distribution. Having a fully functional one (and a transition from the
>> former if it's different) is what we need to work on.
>
> Following that logic, supporting multiple packaging helpers, desktop
> environments, text editors, compilers, kernels, so on and so on are
> also *not* in the best interest of a distribution. Let's pick the
> most functional ones, that is what we need to work on.
As Cyril already said these are false analogies. Supporting multiple
packageing helpers does not place a burden on maintainers that only use
one of them. It's also invisible to users. Similar arguments can be made
for your other examples. On the other hand supporting several init
systems places a burden onto every daemon maintainer. Every init system
is only usefull if it's supported by all packages.
The option of just useing the init script compatibility layer that most
(all) init systems currently provide is IMO just not an option because
it does not let us use most of the benefits of the newer systems. It's
just sysv-init in new cloths.
Gaudenz
P.S.: This is my last mail to this thread. I don't think we have to
reiterate this debate over and over on different lists.
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: