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

Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system

Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +0000]:
> > Let's tech committee it :)
> I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd,
> or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support
> one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones
> (plus maybe OpenRC which had a GSoC after all), then which one. That’s
> something for the Developers to decide IMHO. And we should do this now.
> Still relatively early in the release process, so that any action can
> be done by jessie+1 at the latest, with jessie already carrying everything
> needed to enable it.

Yes and no.

Yes, all of us have an opinion — and valid, important reasons to hang
to that opinion.

No, because we have had already many flames on this topic, and I do
not see it has helped move the current situation.

A GR is out of the question, because GRs should only address
non-technical issues — and this topic is a technical one.

Now... A ruling by the tech committee will have to be followed by us
all. And if the tech-ctte were to rule we are all moving to OpenRC,
and I were a rabid OpenRC basher... Well, you  cannot force a
volunteer to do it, right? (yes, we can choose an init system by
policy and make my packages insta-RC-buggy, but that's also far from

But... Back to the topic: Given the recurrence of the topic, the
difficulty to reach a decision and the breadth of its impact... Yes, I
would support requesting tech-ctte for a ruling.

Oh, and about the other subthread, about a bias inside the committee:
I fully trust our committee members to discuss and decide based on the
best outcome for Debian, regardless of who pays their RL job. All of
them have proven to be the most committed people to our project over a
very long timespan, and have earned their position through hard work
and commitment. Yes, Russ mentions there might be a conflict of
interest — Having the conflict explicitly stated were it to exist (it
has to be acknowledged by the affected people), the members that feel
so might decide not to get involved with the present discussion from
within their role.

Reply to: