[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 Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
>> discussion.
>> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
>> don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.
> Sorry to take so long in replying.  The current draft from git is:
> ==BEGIN==
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to consider the
> transition plan of the init package maintainers to have both new
> installs and upgrades use systemd by default.
> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian.
> 2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, 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.
> 3. The init package (and other related packages) currently in jessie
>    implement this transition.
> ==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 on upgrades and to
>    install systemd by default on 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 inittab configurations which
>    are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)
>    c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
>    upgrades and switch to sysvinit upon installation.
>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.
> 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.
> ==END==
> I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> warranted from my side.  I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> are.

Why?  Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
what's the point?

What possibly is there to gain from further init system meddling just
when the clouds were clearing?

Best wishes,

Reply to: