Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
>>>>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl> writes:
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl> writes:
[…]
>>> The second part, making systemd portable, has already been widely
>>> discussed. There are significant technical reasons why systemd is
>>> Linux only. And the potential "recepients", like BSD, don't seem
>>> to be interested anyway.
>> Unless I be mistaken, that also /does/ mean Debian. That is: Debian
>> GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd.
> Yes, the technical reasons apply. The other reasons apply too, I
> think: /kFreeBSD and /Hurd ports are interested in staying close to
> their upstream projects and certainly don't have the manpower to take
> on systemd porting on their own.
My point is that Debian is bound to support non-Systemd installs
as long as the two statements below remain true:
• Debian supports non-Linux installs;
• Systemd is Linux-only.
And this is about the only thing about Systemd I do care of.
(Curiously, from this point of view, being only available for
Linux is actually the Systemd feature of most importance to me.)
As for Systemd being the default (on Debian GNU/Linux,
specifically), – I guess I shouldn’t bother. GNOME is also the
default, but I cannot readily recall ever having it running on
my Debian installs.
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A
Reply to: