Re: Debian Buster release to partially drop non-systemd support

[Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>]

Bastian Blank - 19.10.18, 12:25:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > So Devuan almost doubles the percentage of sysvinit-core 
> > installations.
> Devuan is _not_ Debian.  They forked it, with the full knowledge that
> they might have to do all the work to support their choices.  They had
> the chance to not do that, contribute the proper changes back to
> support their use case.  They we might have had a proper maintained
> sysvinit.
> 
> But instead they flip tables by even seeing systemd units or
> libsystemd, which by definition does nothing in this context.  If
> someone comes up with a usable systemd service to init script
> converter, I don't think Debian would opt against using it to provide
> a service for our users. What would they do?

As long as people choose to strip of dependencies to libsystemd from 
packages like util-linux, avoiding a fork would not work with how Debian 
and Debian based distributions are built. Devuan developers chose to do 
that and its perfectly their choice doing so. I am not at all interested 
to discuss that choice here, so in case you insist on recycling a 
discussion from the past… I let go on replying to you any further.

I also do not think that back then just shortly after all the hurting 
each other during the fierce discussion about Systemd introduction in 
Debian a cooperation would have worked out nicely. Now I see an 
opportunity for such a cooperation and Devuan developers like KatolaZ 
have offered it.

Debian has hundreds of derived distributions which co-exist peacefully 
with Debian. If for the time being Devuan is one of them, I see no issue 
what-so-ever with it.

Apart from letting go off the past, apart from letting go off old 
hurting, apart from accepting that different people decide differently 
on libsystemd and other init system related topics and from accepting 
that no one is right or wrong on this there is really nothing to see 
here.

Again: The past *is* in the past. It is not now. It is over, it is gone. 
It is just a memory. It does not exist in itself. The more you insist on 
recreating it again, the most you insist to continue to suffer. Which is 
perfectly your choice.

It is my choice to do something different instead.

-- 
Martin