Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 11:38:19 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote: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.Everyone gets it. Not everyone boots with it. Not everyone who boots first time with it gets to use it on subsequent boots.
That is DEFINITELY a definition of "default" that is subject to very differing opinions.
And there is a very distinct difference between "installed by default" and "enabled by default."
For the debian-installer, it ultimately comes down to which packages are marked as essential in the repo, and what the installer does with those packages "by default."
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.Isn't the installation of systemd as PID 1 from, for example, a netinst image a fact? In all this discussion no-one has disputed this.
Umm.... no-one has disputed that this is what happens. What many have disputed is whether or not alternatives should be possible.
Specifically, if not for debootstrap bug #668001, for which a patch now exists, it would be possible to do a netinst that does not install systemd as PID1.
Further, at least some are advocating for making that choice available as part of the menu presented by the installer.
"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.I'd like to say it is negligible and merely a consequence of using the package management system as intended.
The package management system provides for alternatives. A bug in debootstrap gets in the way.