[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default



On 14Oct23:2035+0300, Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote:

> That's not the point. From the technical point of
> view, IMO, you are correct but that's not the only
> view that exists in Debian Project, me thinks.

[snip]

> My choices reg. my use of technology isn't based
> only on technical grounds, you know.

There are legal considerations pertaining to global
software redistribution, of course.  There are
financial considerations beyond Debian's licensing
and support fees, to be sure, but those and other
categories of non-technical considerations are entirely
outside of the Debian organization as I see it--they
are user considerations.  The Social Contract guides
the Debian process but defining what is best for
the users can be difficult because most users do not
interact with the developers.  It is clear from the
TC ruling there was considerable concern the change
of default init needed to be handled very carefully,
a concern almost entirely based upon how the change
can adversely affect existing users.

Note the Debian team does not force anyone to use
Debian but often expends effort to improve Debian
from the point of view of some large percentage of
the users with a lot of effort invested in providing
a distribution that is useful to an unusually wide
range of users.

Multi-init support is an oft-stated and highly
desirable goal for Jessie.  Report any software
behavior that hinders that as a bug at the earliest
opportunity.  That's the most likely way to effect
the change you seek.
-- 
<not cent from sell>
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!

Dave_Craig______________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
 You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
 Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: