Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd
Adam D. Barratt <adam <at> adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> Proof by assertion isn't an argument. If you think kfreebsd sucks then
> you're entitled to that opinion, but please don't seek to frame it as
> some sort of consensus direction on the part of the project because
> "it's obvious".
What I consider obvious is not direct agreement on "kFreeBSD sucks", but that it
will not become a significant platform for Debian use and development. Do you
seriously expect to see major popularity for it?
> > I know there have been "official" Debian/kFreeBSD releases, but those make
> > very little difference - someone published a set of files which were then
> > ignored by about everyone.
>
> fwiw, they're more official than the original amd64 release of Debian
Yes, more _official_. Doesn't that support what I said? AMD64 was not official,
while kFreeBSD was. Shows that the "official" label is not all that relevant for
practical considerations.
> > I'm talking about what kernel people use when they use "Debian",
> > and what platform development that creates the software in the distribution
> > happens on. There's no plan to migrate from Linux to BSD kernel
>
> That's somewhat of a straw man. No-one's ever suggested that support
> for Linux be dropped, so far as I'm aware. There's no reason why we
That "no-one's ever suggested that support for Linux be dropped" is close to the
point I was trying to make. Nobody seriously thought kFreeBSD would become the
center of Debian use/development, much less suggested deprecating Linux.
kFreeBSD was accepted not as a future direction of Debian but as one more niche
thing in the archive.
> can't at least try our best to support multiple kernels, so there's no
> migration to plan or not plan for (and no, "systemd only supports Linux"
> is not an argument against supporting other kernels).
I've never argued directly against support for other kernels (if you thought so
you've misunderstood something). What I've said is that decisions for Linux
should be made without undue concern for niche ports. If systemd is good _for
Linux_ then systemd should be used, and the burden for any compatibility work
should be on the people who want to maintain the other ports.
Reply to: