On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote: > On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 07:42:33 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote: > >> On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote: >>> Please be specific. What problems of of dependencies are you >>> talking about? >> >> Please stop bring up irrelevant questions and address the question >> being asked. >> >> This does require you to at least understand and acknowledge the >> difference between a *clean* install, and installing something one >> way, then having to uninstall a primary piece and replace it with >> something else. > > systemd is the default init system. That means everyone gets it. No - that only means that everyone gets it by default, not necessarily that everyone gets it. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in recognizing that people *DO NOT AGREE* about what the word "default" means (or should mean) in the context of "the default init system", or in having a discussion about what it should mean - or even in figuring out what each other do mean by that term, and possibly finding other ways to describe those meanings so that the ambiguity goes away. > You can only have one init system as PID 1, so that means changing to > an alternative involves removing systemd first. Only if systemd is already installed as PID 1, which is precisely what the disagreement is about. You subscribe to a meaning of "default" which assumes that systemd must necessarily get installed as PID 1 before anything else happens. That's also what the current state of what actually happens is. Other people subscribe to a meaning of "default" which, e.g., assumes only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is taken to prevent it from getting so installed. That seems like an entirely reasonable interpretation, at least to me. It looks to me like you're assuming the consequent - building your argument on the assumption that what your opponent is arguing against is the truth. That's not really a good way to make progress in any discussion. >> The two are not the same, and no amount of you trying to act as if >> they are will change the fact that they are not. > > "Clean" install is a bogus target. There is not a single technical > advantage in pursuing it as a feature to add to d-i. Changing the > init system within the package management framework works and has no > disadvantages. At the very least, it has the minor disadvantage of wasting resources (time, CPU power, write cycles, et cetera) on installing the non-desired package to begin with. Other disadvantages may be more a matter of opinion, but that one at least does exist, however negligible it may arguably be. (Hmm. There may be a parallel here; many of those objecting to systemd do so on the grounds that it violates what they see as clean design, and at least one of the people objecting to the "install systemd as PID 1 and then remove it later before ever booting into it" approach seems to be doing so on the grounds that that is not a clean design...) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature