>>>>> "Svante" == Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:
>> Yes, this may mean that the support for a particular alternate
>> init system may be better in a downstream that focuses on that
>> system than in Debian itself.
Svante> Perhaps all Debian Developers and Maintainers opposing
Svante> systemd ought to leave the project, including those having
Svante> package not being dependent on systemd.
I am frustrated reading this.
It sounds like you were suggesting that people should leave as a way of
pressuring or punishing the project.
I'm disappointed; I hope for a community that respects all its members
better.
You and your happiness matter.
Debian getting to make decisions and choices for its distributions
matters.
If you or anyone else would be happier focusing on a downstream, then do
that.
I hope you do that to make you happier rather than to punish other
people.
And yeah, if a bunch of people leave Debian because they would be
happier elsewhere, we'll have to find people to do their work (or get
less work done).
However, it is possible to focus on a downstream without leaving. There
are great folks in Devuan who are doing the parts of their work they can
do upstream in Debian, while focusing on the parts Debian won't accept
for Devuan.
Debian actually making a decision is good for these people as well as
systemd proponents.
They know which issues Debian is likely to help with and which issues
they are going to get pushback on.
Already I've seen issues getting quick responses that might previously
have been stalled for years to avoid conflict.
Sometimes the responses aren't what people wish to hear, but at least
we're respecting them enough to tell them what Debian will accept and
what it will not.
Many of the conversations are more productive than conversations before
the GR.
(Some, sadly, are not.)
But yeah, some people are bitter, frustrated and angry.
If you'd be happier not being involved in Debian, please take care of
yourself and leave. If you don't try to burn the house down on the way
out, we'll be happy to see you again later if your needs or Debian
change.
We'd love to hear the cool things you're working on meanwhile.
You know what? It doesn't matter to me at least.
It's more important to me that people do what makes them happy (while
respecting the needs of others including Debian)
than that any particular work gets done in Debian.
And if not enough people want to work on the things Debian wants to do?
Well, Debian will change or it will have served its purpose and move
into history.
I ask you to respect yourself and us. Let Debian make its decisions.
If you find those decisions aren't right for you, I hope you choose to
do what is best for you. But I insist that you respect the Debian
community enough to let it make its choices and not work to sabotage
that.
Svante> Just to make sure: If I submit patches for the Debian
Svante> installer for support of more than one init system, they
Svante> would be outright rejected.
I don't know.
Samuel has given you an answer.
At the DPL level, the GR says that you are welcome to propose patches
and that the debian-boot (DI) folks get to use their normal processes
to review them.
DI is reasonably conservative in what they accept:
* I don't think we ended up with even a expert mode switch to turn off
merged /usr even though it was proposed.
If I'm wrong on this I apologize.
* It's been years and we haven't gotten support for blends in tasksel.
(Blends is a choice related issue that I think has wider practical
support than alternative init systems at the moment.) At one level DI
has committed to accepting blends support, but has set the bar high
enough that the initial implementation did not meet this bar and we've
been blocked on people with very little free time.
So, I don't know about alternative init systems, but for a variety of
factors, things I think are similar have not yet made it into DI.
>> My take on the GR--and certainly my intent in writing proposal
>> B--is that would take a new decision of the project.
Svante> Maybe another GR?
>> I understand that you and many in the project believe that
>> existing alternative init systems meet that bar today. My take
>> on the GR is that the project as a whole does not support that
>> conclusion.
Svante> Seems like you (and all other systemd-proponents) already
Svante> have made up your mind. So non-systemd for Linux is a dead
Svante> horse in Debian (the Universal Operating System!).
I can't speak for anyone else, but yeah I've come to my own conclusions.
I was fairly open about them:
https://hartmans.livejournal.com/99395.html
For myself I've concluded that systemd (at least for Linux) is far
better than anything else out there today.
Something else might come along tomorrow even better than systemd.
Svante> My comments above are enough as a answer to this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature