Re: Proposal: s have a GR about the init system
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 07:57:50 Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 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.
If someone has engaged in actions that cause you to think their decision
making is suspect (I'm not saying either way here, it's your opinion, not
mine) that's fair, IMO.
Holding their employer against them based on no evidence that there is an
actual problem is not. The most important thing in the absence of an actual
problem is to shine a light on the potential. That's been done and I think
that's enough.
> 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?
I haven't thought about it deeply, but we've already got different CD #1's for
different DEs. If there is support for multiple inits in the Debian archive,
there's no reason why all of them would have to use the same one. I haven't
thought about it in detail, but it strikes me as much less far fetched than
thinking Jessie will ship with a single init system other than sysvinit.
Scott K
Reply to: