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

Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering

On 11/16/2014 10:28 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> In the absence of that, it seems quite understandable to
> interpret this as yet another attempt by the TC to undermine systemd.

It's nothing but that exactly that, not more, not less. The decision
which init system Debian would use was already made and the vast
majority of upstream projects and end users *want* systemd.

I remember how the proponents of init systems other than systemd
insisted how important it is to be portable and that we desperately
need to support the kFreeBSD. And look what just happened, kFreeBSD
was dropped from stable. That particular argument was a strawman
because *none* of the people who came up with that argument that
I know of were actually using the BSD port.

> [1] (one of the reasons I took part in refining drafts of it, with
> clarifying language explaining precisely why it would not affect the
> ongoing transition, though in retrospect that language was clearly
> insufficient)

I appreciate your help and input and I think you have been a very
reasonable and valuable contributor. However, you helped answering
a question that we actually already had an answer for.

> I'd also disagree with "when asked to do so", considering that the asker
> was a TC member;

Which is why that particular proposal should have been dismissed in the
first place. The idea that one of the CTTE member makes a proposal that
he and the rest of the CTTE is going to vote over is absurd since
the person who makes the proposal is never actually going to be able
to cast a neutral and objective vote. His vote is already fixed before
the proposal is handed in.

The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a

> in effect, the committee asked itself to decide, and
> subsequently answered, just as with 762194.  And whether you consider it
> an attack on a maintainer / maintenance team or not, it's unreasonable
> to completely ignore the consequences of your decisions.

Yes, I agree. The fallout was to be expected and there will be more
unless these people who keep pushing these proposals immediately
stop doing what they're doing and accept that the majority of
users and developers want systemd and that it simply not feasible
to support more than one init system.

Heck, we don't even have two versions of ffmpeg/libav allowed in
unstable and those are less critical than the init system.

> I share your sadness that this and many other actions has driven Tollef
> away from the maintenance of a critical and difficult-to-maintain
> package.  I do not, however, share your sanctimony.

Not just Tollef but also Joey. And I have met both Tollef (in Oslo
and Portland) and Joey in person (in Portland) and have corresponded
with both of them over mail and IRC several times. Both of them are
incredibly patient and calm and neither of them would just throw the
towel without being seriously frustrated with what is happening

Please stop with that non-sense, immediately!


 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Reply to: