On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:26:22AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:12:12AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > > Is this the upstream Debian wants to base its "life" on? > According to the technical committee, and the lack of support for the > GR, the answer is yes. The GR that was proposed was not about reversing the choice of default. In any case, the only conclusion we can draw from the lack of GR is that developers have chosen not to have a GR to override the TC. > If you don't like this answer, please put effort into doing the work to > provide a viable alternative, rather than bringing this issue up yet > again. There absolutely are viable alternatives, regardless of which one the TC happened to choose in a split decision. This "our way is the right way" attitude from systemd is nothing new (cf. non-Linux portability) and should not be surprising to anyone involved; and was a significant reason why I voted upstart above systemd at the TC. But as far as I'm concerned, this kerfuffle is too little, too late. Maybe if kernel upstream developers have such strong opinions on the choice of init system, they should have engaged in the discussions with the distros *before* everyone settled on systemd. The avalanche has already started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature