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

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

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Unless there's some kind of disclosure policy for everyone involved in the any 
> technical discussion around Debian,

CTTE decisions are quite distinct from "any technical discussion".

>  I think it's silly to claim Steve and 
> Colin are inherently unable to separate what's good for Debian from what's 
> good for Canonical.  This is just one more symptom of irrational anti-
> Ubuntu/Canonical bias I see from some people in Debian and I encourage Steven 
> and Colin not to give in to it.

A conflict of interest is not the same as claiming the people involved
are "inherently unable" to distinguish different interests. And I'd say
this is a very obvious case of conflict of interest - their employer has
an official stance, and the decision also has a direct impact on that
employer. I do not see what reason you would have to label such concerns
"silly" or "symptoms of irrational bias" unless you reject the whole
concept of "conflict of interest" and say such concerns are always
"silly" anywhere. Is that your view?

I am no longer willing to assume that Steve Langasek would act in good
faith in evaluating init systems; he has posted false claims about
systemd too many times for me to believe they would all be honest
mistakes, and has posted what has clearly been deliberate FUD. This
independently of and in addition to any conflict of interest.

I don't have anything against Colin Watson, and have nothing in
particular to complain about in his reply concerning the conflict of
interest. But I don't think there really is much he could even
theoretically say to fully remove concerns about the conflict. That
there is a conflict of interest is not a statement about him in person;
it's a statement about the situation.

> No matter what gets decided, some people aren't going to like it and will 
> complain.
> Personally, I don't think there's more than one sane choice for Jessie anyway:
> 1.  Init systems in Debian MUST provided compatibility with sysvinit scripts.
> 2.  Packages needing an init MUST provide a sysvinit script and may provide 
> native init scripts also for alternative systems.
> 3.  For the various CD #1 options, there can be different default init scripts
> Something like that.  Anyone who thinks their pet sysvinit alternate is going 
> to destroy all opposition and become the one true init for Jessie is dreaming.

I think the important thing is making a decision on what init system
Debian will use in the future. Details of the transition are then
secondary. I wouldn't expect every trace of sysvinit scripts to
disappear before next release (unless it takes a long enough time...).

I don't see what would be the point of CD #1 options for different
inits. Is that really a serious suggestion?

Reply to: