[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Old-timer installer, task-sysvinit?

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-23):
> Use of a root shell can turn a Debian system into a non-Debian system 
> (by messing with the system in ways not following our defined rules).  
> Blame is on the user for doing so.  Typos are unsupported.
> Use of declarative hints should make it hard to do the same.  I would 
> expect it to be treated as a bug if some hint wreaks havoc without at 
> least popping up a strong warning first.  Blame is on Debian.  We 
> support _using_ our system through the interfaces we provide - but some 
> interfaces are less governed by us, hence more dangerous to use.
> I consider it more dangerous to tell users to operate a root shell than 
> have them type declarative hints.  Both gets processed as root, but the 
> latter is far less likely for typos or misunderstandings to wreak havoc.

You can “wreak havoc” plenty of things with other preseed options, or
even just answering d-i prompts. There's nothing specific to this
particular late_command option.

> >>> 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.
> Until 4 months ago, choosing a non-default init system required typing 
> "YES, I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING" or something similar, due to requiring 
> removal of a essential package.
> It is therefore no surprise to me that the idea of avoiding init from 
> debootstrap comes up now rather than a year ago (for starters, that 
> package didn't exist back then).

I hope you do realize I'm more than familiar with the timeline. That
doesn't change the fact that people could have worked towards this goal
many many months ago, and that now is too late.

> > 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.
> Way ahead of the freeze we talked about changing default init.  I 
> assumed that was similar to change of syslog daemon - i.e. if you want 
> something else than the default (which is in Debian and stable and does 
> not conflict with other things you also want) then you can have that 
> through ordinary standard Debian ways.
> Only few months ago did I realize that this default is different from 
> other default packages, in that you cannot pick alternatives through 
> standard package selection interfaces, but must use a free-form root 
> shell.
> Only now, today, do I realize that I am not even welcome to help work on 
> creating workaround declarative interfaces - only option is "shut up, 
> get in line" it seems.  I dearly hope I misunderstood you there.

Yes, you seem to have misunderstood me, because I did write this instead:

    So please use the available mechanisms to “avoid” systemd if you
    “need” doing so, and move on?

I'm not sure how many more times I'll have to say “no, this "feature"
isn't going to be merged into d-i, it's not needed, and it's too late”.

Anyway, I'll stop repeating myself; but please don't put any "shut up"
in my mouth.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: