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

Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:10 -0800 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.

A few comments below.

> ==BEGIN==
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
> §6.1.4 to override the decision of the init package maintainers to
> depend on systemd-sysv as the first alternative dependency, thus
> ensuring both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194.  #762194 was
not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
"init" to change the alternative order.  The TC was more generally
debating whether the switch to systemd as the default included a switch
of existing systems to systemd, and if not, how to only switch for new
systems and not for upgrades (for which the TC solicited proposals).
Changing the init package dependencies (and changing debootstrap, d-i,
etc to install systemd-sysv for new installs) was one possible
implementation of the latter.

Here's an opening paragraph that seems clearer to me about the overall
purpose of the bug report and this statement:

In #762194, the Technical Committee considered whether upgrades of
existing systems should continue to switch to systemd by default, or
retain their init system (with only new installs getting systemd by

> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian. 
> 2. In <87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no>[1], the maintainers of the init
>    package announced their transition plan for migrating to systemd as
>    the default init system on both installs and new upgrades.

Possible addition, for clarity: "The packages in jessie implement this
transition plan."

> ==OPTION A==
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default.

For clarity: "to transition upgraded systems to systemd by default, not
just new installs."

> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
>    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.

I would change this from "non-standard inittab configurations" to "uses
of /etc/inittab".  They're not non-standard; it's not incredibly common
to modify inittab to launch services or add consoles, but it's not by
any means non-standard.  I don't want to see anyone (such as a sysadmin
of a system with such a configuration) taking this TC statement as a
comment on the appropriateness of such inittab configuration.

Also, you might want to include a link here.  The mechanism was being
developed in a thread in #765803, but that's not the subject of that
bug, and that bug doesn't seem like the right place for it.  Thus, I've
re-posted the WIP code to a systemd bug, #761063.

>    c) Providing documentation on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on
>    both initial installs and upgrades.

Nitpick: "on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on upgrades, or switch
to sysvinit for new installs".  (Also, "how to opt to remain with" seems
awkward; perhaps "how to keep using"?)

>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.

One potential addition:

5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
   maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included in
   jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.

(Since neither (a) nor (b) above has actually made it into jessie, or
unstable for that matter.)

That said, such advice may be unnecessary and superfluous; I'd hope
that's already the plan.

> 1: https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no

I would suggest inlining this reference in the relevant paragraph, or at
least making it a footnote right after that paragraph, rather than an

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: