Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> writes:
> On 28/10/13 20:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>> For those who haven't seen it, Lennart has posted some of his comments
>> about all this on G+:
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
> And here is the reply from Gentoo developer Patrick Lauer:
> http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2013-10.html#e2013-10-29T13_39_32.txt
This, sadly, was not particularly useful or interesting. As near as I can
tell, the core content was that he doesn't think cgroup management is
particularly difficult (fine, but I don't think that was the point; the
point, instead, was that it's important to have a single arbitrator, which
if true poses specific technical challenges) and he believes that the
components to systemd would be easy to implement as separate daemons if
they were properly documented.
I'm one of those people who thinks that nearly everything in Linux is
horribly underdocumented, so I'm not going to argue with that point, but
it's not a very useful statement from a practical viewpoint. systemd
offers specific pieces of integrated functionality. By and large, no one
seems to question that the operations enabled by that functionality are
useful (although there is some debate over how useful). GNOME is not
depending on systemd out of some nefarious plot. It's depending on
systemd because GNOME wants to use those pieces of functionality systemd
provides.
Therefore, I think it's important for arguments against using systemd to
somehow engage directly with the questions about functionality. Either
there needs to be an argument that the functionality is not important and
can be done without (which raises questions about how one would build
GNOME in such an environment), or there needs to be some sort of plan for
how equivalent functionality to systemd will be provided.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: