Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Agreed on both counts. I understand why Ian (was it?) wanted to have
> the "multiple init systems for the foreseeable future" text, as a
> statement of general intent, and I don't disagree with that. But I
> would prefer if the specifics ("Therefore, for jessie and later
> releases:") were marked simply as "Therefore, for jessie:". That seems
> to dispose of part of your objection to L.
I'm afraid that I would be categorically opposed to that change. That
would relegate L to a mere transitional provision.
I think making the commitment to diversity a long-term intention is
> I get that people want to dispose of this so we never have to consider
> it again, and that we want to provide more certainty of direction; but I
> honestly don't think we should be trying to do that. As people have
> been saying in other contexts, the probability space collapses quite a
> bit following this decision; with a year of subsequent development the
> proper long-term approach will be much clearer.
My fear is that without the clear statement in favour of diversity,
long-term, those who do not think diversity is important will continue
to create additional technical obstacles.
As a result our freedom of action will be constrained even more then
than it has been now.