Re: upgrades must not change the installed init system [was: Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing]
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> writes:
> On 09/09/14 22:34, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> I truly believe that making systemd the default without asking the user
>> to test it first, is going to cause more breakage and angry users than
>> doing it the other way.
>
> s/making systemd the default/replacing the user init system with systemd on upgrades/
Yes, and I'd be majorly pissed if I was suddenly forced to use systemd
or if such major changes as replacing the init system were made without
any choice or notice.
Debian has --- or at least used to have --- a policy that users will be
informed about changes to configuration files when updates are
performed, and those include the init scripts. They are --- or at least
were --- given a choice to decide what to do when an existing
configuration file or init script would be replaced by the version in
the package.
On top of that, remember what Debian did when exim3 was obsoleted by
exim4 and when squid3 became available as an alternative to squid2.7:
Exim is *still* designated explicitly as exim4 many years (over a decade
now?) after version 4 replaced version 3, and for a while, both exim3
and exim4 were available in Debian. I appreciated this way of doing the
transition.
Squid 2.7 is *still* available in Debian, together with squid3. I
appreciate that very much since I'm actually using squid2.7 because
squid3 is still missing features I require and which squid2.7 has.
And now Debian wants to:
* give up the policy (or at least tradition) of informing users of
changes to configuration files/init scripts
* force a major change upon its users by replacing the init system
without any notice at all and no choice given
* leave its users completely alone with all the breakage that may be
caused, with no choice and no solution
* quietly go with a default init system that raises significant concerns
among the users and makes Debian broken by design
I'm finding this outrageous. The quality of Debian has already declined
over the years, which is a pity. With suddenly switching to brokenarch
without any regards for the users who need a working system and no fix
whatsoever in sight, Debian has already driven me away after over 15
years because that kind of unreliability is unacceptable. I'm only back
because I managed to set up my xen-server with Debian but not with
Centos. And I need it working, not broken.
Now you're considering to make the same mistake again and to destroy the
last bit of good reputation and reliability Debian might have and to
remove such appreciable features as to inform users about changes and to
give them choices.
Let me remind you:
"Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environments. [...] we will provide an integrated
system of high-quality materials"[1]
Please either update the social contract, or stick to it.
[1]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: