Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-23): > > If you're unhappy about the initial systemd installation, that's too > > bad, because we're not going to change debootstrap, especially not > > at this late stage of the release cycle, to behave differently > > depending on the target distribution. The current script covers all > > suites from etch (etch, lenny, squeeze, wheey, jessie, and now > > stretch), and it'd really be nice if that could stay the case. > > I am unhappy about the need for messing non-declaratively with > debian-installer in order to override default choice of init system. > > It is nice that debian-installer provides hooks to do dangerous > things, but I find it worrisome that changing init system involves > use of that. I'm not sure why you're considering or calling preseeding “dangerous”. > > There won't any more debconf, udeb, or whatever addition going to > > happen. It means additional work (nobody has been doing that for a > > whole release cycle), more maintenance, and… it's just too late. > > Why do you say "for a whole release cycle"? Only late in the release > cycle did init system become changeable without violating policy > (removing core packages). Init systems have been a hot topic for most of the release cycle, with #727708 being finally referred to the tech-ctte in october 2013, meaning more than a year ago. It looks to me that people demanding so badly that debootstrap and/or d-i accomodates for their init system of choice should have started sending patches (to make init systems interchangeable or to support “choice” in debootstrap/d-i/etc.) way ahead of the freeze. Kenshi Muto is one of the few people having done actual work and sent patches, but way too late. So please use the available mechanisms to “avoid” systemd if you “need” doing so, and move on? Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature