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

Bug#727708: Resolve impasse by focusing on requirements for smooth upgrade

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:41:18AM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:

>> People have made various assertions about how difficult it would be to
>> port the necessary systemd components to run with some other init
>> system, or to create independent compatible implementations, but *no
>> one has actually done that yet*, and we don't know for sure that anyone
>> will.

> That's not true, and I'm very cross that I have to keep refuting this
> claim (which I feel that I have to do, because various members of the TC
> seem to *accept* this claim).  The systemd dbus services *have* been
> made to run in an init-system-agnostic environment, this is exactly what
> Ubuntu is doing today.  More time has been wasted on this back-and-forth
> over whether it's possible to make these dbus services work on top of
> upstart, than it took to actually put the systemd-shim package into
> Debian.

I'm not sure which TC members you have in mind.  Just in case it's me, and
for the record, I know that you've done this now for the version of
systemd in Debian.  My concern is only over whether it will continue to be
feasible to do this into the indefinite future as systemd continues to
develop, particularly including, but not limited to, the cgroup changes in
current versions of systemd.

My primary point in the various discussions of this is to not lock in a
course of action predicated on work that everyone *intends* to do, but
which is not *guaranteed* to actually happen.  As long as the work *does*
happen, I don't think you and I (and for that matter the GNOME and systemd
maintainers) actually disagree.  I just don't want the formal decision to
commit to the assumption that this work will necessarily continue to
happen and continue to be successful into the indefinite and murky future.

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

Reply to: