Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host
- From: Serge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:47:39 +0300
- Message-id: <CAOVenEpUzgNzCqwEGc2DjybATYfKpnkcC_qybEnn2pzVHt=+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <20120831200609.GA16744@physik.fu-berlin.de>
- References: <20120809130307.7498.64495.reportbug@localhost> <20120809135405.GA18318@bongo.bofh.it> <email@example.com> <1344552643.4958.7.camel@tomoyo> <20120810072322.GC10872@anguilla.debian.or.at> <1344585409.4874.20.camel@tomoe> <CAOVenEp82g82SZH2hZ2gZK43jBCu7=-Tm28OQj3aEk8req5iQA@mail.gmail.com> <1346399420.3479.446.camel@pi0307572> <F37B32A1-C915-4F40-9908-CB2858D3CFDD@physik.fu-berlin.de> <CAOVenEpJT63OYbPRtzZcDyk7XkZhi=1VN8sd0tnqd7gv9Pf0Kg@mail.gmail.com> <20120831200609.GA16744@physik.fu-berlin.de>
2012/8/31 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Sorry for writing such a long email, but I believe that having
a welcoming environment is very important for debian.
>> It's often someone says something similar about many ITPs. I believe noone
>> should say things like that, unless he wants to scare everybody away and
>> have Debian forgotten and dead. Saying that you not only reduce the number
>> of bugs in Debian, but you also reduce the number of people working on
>> Debian, because when they hear that they just turn around and go away.
> I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their
> own solution instead of helping to improve what is already there.
I thought it's obvious:
* someone packages a new tool (+1 package, +1 maintainer)
* more packages in debian means more users
* more users means more developers
* more developers and maintainers means better debian
Anyway, I *guess* I understand your point. You afraid that *if* this new
`openrc` is accepted *and* widely used in debian *and* other package start
depending on it badly *and* its maintainer will abandon it, then we may
have a problem. So between two options:
1. Someone packages `openrc` and starts maintaining it. Being a maintainer
he may (or may not) help other packages as well.
2. Someone joins to e.g. sysvinit and implements all features of `openrc`
you would prefer #2. I would prefer #2 myself. :)
But the problem is — we don't have that choice. What we really have is:
1. Someone packages `openrc` in debian and starts maintaining it. Being
a maintainer he may (or may not) help other packages as well.
2. Someone goes to launchpad/github/some-private-repo and maintains
`openrc` there for himself and some friends.
Having such a choice I would prefer #1. And you?
> Well, yes. Debian has it's policy, a social contract and the DFSG. You
> are certainly not allowed to do anything you want
I was trying to use some common sense (i.e. explaining that it's rude to
say to people what they should do, it scares them away which means less
maintainers which is bad for debian), but if you want to stick to rules,
then `openrc` should be, no, it MUST be in debian repository, since at
least some users asked for it and "Our priorities are our users and free
software", right? Also those rules don't allow anybody to decide what
package I must work on, right?
>> When I come and say "Hey, I want to work on openrc in debian" (replace
>> "openrc" with any other package), I mean what I say. Most probably I just
>> like this particular software for some reason. And it usually never means
>> that I also want to work on upstart/systemd/sysvinit/etc. So when you tell
>> me "don't mess around it", I won't drop openrc, I'll just drop debian.
> If that was really the case, how come there are so many orphaned
> packages in Debian?
Lack of resources, maybe? Which is because of lack of developers? Which is
because many new developers coming and willing to do something get unfriendly
response like "we don't want you to do that, we already have lots of such
things in repo, work on them or go away"?
> I'm not saying I wouldn't trust your words, but you cannot seriously
> promise you will always be there to take care of OpenRC if you're the
> only maintainer.
Sure, I can't. Anything may happen. And noone can. That's why "being about
choice" is a good thing. If for some reason debian supported only `systemd`
and tomorrow upstream announces "forget systemd it won't be supported any
more, we've just developed a new kernel-based init system with GNOME4
integrated into it, and being kernel-based it is lightning fast", then we'll
have a problem. But if we also have `openrc` and `sysvinit` then we just
switch to another init system and things will mostly work. Sure, we'll
still have a problem, but it would be much smaller because we initially
had a choice (and `openrc` maintainer already made sure that such
emergency switch won't be impossible).
> Debian is already very popular and successful and I don't see how
> OpenRC would help Debian gain more popularity.
If it's already popular and successful then why there're so many orphaned
packages in Debian? ;)
>>> 95% of the users don't ever interact with the init system directly,
>>> so there is no point in being able to have a choice
>> Bad argument. :) 95% of the users don't even know what Linux is (it's just
>> a kernel, you know) and they certainly don't interact with it directly.
>> But it does not mean that we can forget about linux and never allow
>> people to choose it. :)
> I was actually talking about Linux users, I was not referring to all
> people using computers in the world.
Yes, that's why my analogy worked. :) You talked about all Linux users
and noticed that most of them don't care about init system. So I looked
at all the users and noticed that most of them don't care about Linux. :)
> My point is, 95% of the people who install a Debian or Ubuntu nowadays
> simply don't care what init system they are using as long as the code
> is mature and reliable.
There're 3 types of users:
1. Users who want to see `openrc` in repo
2. Users who hate seing `openrc` in repo
3. Users who don't care
And somewhy you count users from group #3 into #2. Why? Why not into #1?
Or better, if they don't care, then let those who cares decide.
> If you really want to convince me and others being sceptical about
> OpenRC, then you should list a number of arguments why OpenRC is
> actually a good alternative to the existing init systems in Debian.
Sure. Actually, I believe anybody filling ITP should (not "must", but
"should") fill the "description" part so that it clearly showed how this
package is different from those already present in repo. That's IMHO, of
course. As for this particular package I think it's obvious that `openrc`
is "a good alternative to the existing init systems", since it's used by
other distributions and it works there. It may not be the best init
system ever (yet?) but it is a good alternative at least.
> A valid argument in favor of OpenRC and against systemd [...]
Hm. Why do you compare "in favor of OpenRC" and "against systemd"? You
don't think that having `openrc` in debian repo is a threat to `systemd`
in debian repo, do you?