Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:46:42AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >Then the question is why almost all of these "lot more" people did not
> >second the GR proposal.
>
> Well... as a couple of people have now pointed out, at least some
> people didn't know about it.
That's their own fault. By convention[1] GRs are sent to debian-project, it's
DDs responsibility to read this list to see GR proposals. Not only that, but
there was a huge amount of discussion all over the place leading up to the
tech-ctte referral, the prospect of a GR was well advertised, the tech-ctte
even discussed relaxing the majority requirements so that a GR could more
easily override them in this particular case. The discussion about the putative
GR was large[2]. I would suggest that those DDs who were unaware must be in
practical terms not involved in Debian much any more, except I know Thorsten
is, and I'm frankly stunned he missed it altogether.
> In reading through the archives, I have to say that the GR proposal
> was both buried in all the broader discussion of systemd, rather
> long and convoluted reading, and not well publicized.
It's the lion's share of traffic to -project in March[2].
> I do wonder what would happen if a clearly worded proposal (e.g.,
> start with "maintain systemv init as the default system" or "require
> that packages not depend on systemd running as PID1") were well
> publicized, today.
Bear in mind that the latter is currently the state of affairs anyway: "Bug
#746715: The technical committee expects maintainers to continue to support the
multiple available init systems."[3]
[1] This doesn't appear to be written down in the constitution, however.
I think it probably should. I will file a bug+patch.
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/
[3] https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte#status
> Given a policy that stresses the primacy of users, it disturbs me
> that the technical committee and "members" don't seem to be paying
> any attention.
We definitely don't agree on this point here. I see the incredible lengths the
tech-ctte went to in order to have an open discussion, combined with the
outcome to support multiple init systems - unprecedented with any of the other
mainstream Linux distros - as doing exactly that.
> nothing to do with that set of responsibilities -- I'm putting my
> efforts into:
> - stretching out the lifetime of my current Debian installations
> - looking for a new platform to migrate to
I'd suggest the following
- wait until jessie is actually stable before evaluating it
- if, as planned, jessie supports multiple init systems, stick with
the one you like.
> Somehow, neither of these seems like a great investment of time:
> - wading through every single dependency that systemd might impact
> - politicking (especially as I'm NOT a Debian developer eligible to
> propose or vote on GRs) - and this debacle has convinced me it's not
> worth becoming one
I would be very surprised if any significant proportion of the people upset by
the decision to support multiple init systems, with systemd as the default,
bother to do anything about it, apart from complain.
Reply to: