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

Bug#727708: logind working without systemd

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:42:40 +0200, Russ Allbery

>> Hopefully, logind will continue to work without systemd and people will
>> volunteer to maintain the necessary packaging for that configuration,
>> and none of this will be a problem.

> I really wish you were right Russ. Because that's not what upstream is
> doing (since systemd 205, it's not the case), and Debian package
> maintainers have stated this as an argument in the favor of systemd.

> I would very much like the tech ctte to express itself on this topic on
> the final statement (whatever default init system is chosen).

Here's the problem with doing that: what, exactly, do you think the TC can
say, given our powers and given the hard rule in Debian that no one is
going to be forced to do work they don't want to do?

Here are some possibilities that would arguably be within the remit of the
Technical Committee:

* The lack of a logind that works without systemd as PID 1 is an RC bug in
  systemd, so systemd will be removed from the archive if it doesn't
  provide this feature.  This is just silly to say, since removing it from
  the archive doesn't provide a logind that works without systemd, so this
  doesn't achieve anything useful.

* NMUs to revert systemd to version 205 or earlier are permitted if the
  systemd maintainers try to upload a newer version where logind doesn't
  work without systemd.  This is clearly not a defensible solution.  We
  can't hold the package indefinitely at a back revision and lose security
  support, etc.  It might make some sense if the hard dependency of logind
  on systemd were a bug that would be fixed in a later version, but that
  doesn't appear to be how upstream views the issue.

* NMUs to fork logind to work without systemd are permitted and the
  systemd maintainers may not revert them.  *Assuming* there is some
  irreconcilable conflict between the systemd maintainers and the people
  who want to do this work (and I don't think that's a correct
  assumption), I don't understand why we would take this approach as
  opposed to packaging a non-systemd implementation of logind separately
  with the required Conflicts and so on, so that the individual
  maintainers can work on things that they care about without having
  constant tension over NMUs.

* The systemd maintainers are required to cooperate with people who are
  doing the work to make logind work without systemd so that they aren't
  prevented from maintaining those packages.  I see no reason why the TC
  should say this given that there's no sign that the systemd maintainers
  would not do this voluntarily.  Obviously, *right now*, there are
  reasons to wait to see how this whole discussion will resolve since
  that's going to significantly change the priorities and shape of this
  work, but I see no reason to believe people wouldn't be able to work
  this out in some reasonable way without the TC involvement if people are
  available to do this work.

I don't see the point in the TC saying any of those things, and I think
some of them are actively destructive.  Furthermore, I think all of them
are very ethically questionable.  If I were the systemd maintainers, most
of these statements would strike me as heavy-handed extortion: an attempt
of the TC to work around section 2.1.1 of the constitution and force me to
do work by holding something else I care about hostage unless I do that

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: