Re: Debian systemd survey
Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 15:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> There certainly have been cases of fd.o changes being dropped into Debian
> without dealing with the integration questions. mime -> .desktop is a prime
> example of this. .desktop is clearly far superior - but that doesn't mean
> it's ok to drop the existing stuff on the floor.
This is a perfect example of how hard it is to make Debian as a whole
evolve. We have kept the old mime-support entries for a long time, until
just a handful of widespread packages remained to use them, based on the
promise that one day, mime-support would use desktop entries. Yet it
took provocative measures, such as removing widely used entries, to make
it finally happen for real, because otherwise there was no incentive on
the people who were interested to make it happen.
> So if your comment is a
> fair critique of upstart proponents, then mine is an equally fair critique
> of systemd proponents.
I’m not criticizing the fact that upstart comes from Ubuntu. I disagree
with the idea of having Ubuntu as the sole origin of innovation in the
project. It gives bad habits to both Debian and Ubuntu if the natural
thing to do to make things happen in Debian is to make them happen in
Ubuntu first. For a comparable innovation, I’m thankful to Canonical for
making multiarch happen, but the fact that we have waited for Ubuntu to
make it happen is the symptom of a Debian problem that needs solving.
> I'd be happy to hear you expand on how you think systemd integrates better
> with the existing system in Debian. I certainly don't see that this is the
> case - particularly when the systemd dbus services, which people have told
> me are so essential a component of the GNOME desktop going forward, had no
> tested backend that integrated with the Debian locations for system-level
> config files until I provided one for Ubuntu.
I don’t think FHS compliance is often a big problem. It is important to
us, but usually it does not take a lot of patching to fix it, even for
very FHS-unfriendly upstreams.
On the other hand, being able to re-use most of our existing init
scripts, with zero to little modification, is a big advantage of
systemd. The fact that the unit file syntax is purely declarative also
makes it easier to interface with the existing, such as generating init
files from service files.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: