On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:48:11PM -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > >> Debian to merge them. > > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we > > are willing to support it, which means any maintainers who refuse such > > patches will immediately become the targets of abuse from anti-systemd > > zealots. > > Building a derivative around the exclusion of libsystemd from the > > filesystem is not technically defensible. This is a purely political > > fork, and it's politics that we should stay entirely clear of. > As a random long-time user, I recently bought a new pre-built laptop > with debian and got the systemd fun for the first time. Decided no > more debian for me in the future. I'm pleased to hear that there are > derivative distros that resist systemd and encourage debian to *allow* > them, assuming people are willing to do the work. *Not* allowing this is > the politics-driven position. You have misunderstood the technical significance of the proposed 'nosystemd' profile, which is not in any way required in order to support running a Debian system with an init other than systemd. -- 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: PGP signature