Re: systemd-fsck?

[Gergely Nagy <algernon@balabit.hu>]

Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> writes:

>>. This
>>> is a perfectly fine job for a derivate or Pure Blend: to provide a
>>> polished system that serves one use case well.
>>
>>Proper integration certainly belongs into Debian or did we become a
>>supermarket:
>
> Proper integration of components: yes. That is the _job_ of a distro.
>
> Integration of some components at the cost of disabling the freedom
> of users to choose a different free component that also does the job,
> and at the cost of removing some users' use cases: no. That is not
> the job of a "Univeral OS". So-called Enterprise distributions can
> do that, sure. Downstreams and pure blends, too. But not Debian.

You do realise we have one libc (sure, you can install *additional*
ones, but we have one libc the archive is compiled against), we have one
package manager (you can, of course, install rpm too, it is packaged!),
we have one "make" we use to build packages (you can try with others, at
your own peril, though), and we have one init system (you can install
anything else packaged, of course), right?

We have a default, that's what Debian is integrating to. You want to
change the default, that's what downstreams are for. You have the
freedom to change whichever component you want, if you find people to do
the neccessary work. Trying to support N+1 options and integrating them
*all* places a huge burden on every single maintainer, a burden you do
not want, nor need.

-- 
|8]