Re: Why focus on systemd?
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you assume that no "systemd takeover" will happen (despite it
already has), what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple
init systems?
Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time
something is related to the freedesktop stuff, it's not understandable
at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist.
It's an entirely dead end.
Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want
it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows?
I want to know what's going on with my computer. Freedesktop stuff
prevents that. Nobody understands udev rules, and I'm not happy that
installing emacs-nox (on a server) pulls in dbus.
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 16.36:42 Peter Nieman a écrit :
>> Preventing the systemd takeover is certainly important, but it won't
>> be enough to reverse the trend, I fear.
>
> None of the talking on debian-user about "meta", "conceptual" or
> "generic" systemd issues will allow a "systemd takeover" in Debian;
> none.
>
> NONE.
>
> The Debian Technical Committee was asked to resolve a dispute of
> overlapping jurisdictions by deciding (in agreement with the Debian
> Constitution) which init system would be default for the Jessie release.
> It decided to put 'systemd' on the ballot and the outcome of the vote
> was 'systemd'. The TC included a possibility to override this decision
> with an exceptional '1:1' majority requirement. The Developers' body
> which could have overriden this decision, hasn't done so, at all (a GR
> to do so was not even proposed). That decision of the Debian TC is
> therefore 'in force' for the whole Debian project.
>
> You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision
> was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no
> conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's
> totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad
> nauseam will not change that fact.
>
> In fact, I'm quite sure that the 'meta' discussions about systemd on
> debian-user are seriously annoying to a lot of subscribers and to a lot
> of developers too. This, because what should be done now is not
> "arguying endlessly", but "making Jessie the best Debian release ever"
> (given the TC decision) through making Jessie work as best as possible
> with systemd as init, through making Jessie work as best as possible
> with sysvinit as init and doing _actual testing_ of Debian Jessie, in
> real use-cases. Screaming and whining about supposed issues with Jessie
> without testing it is unproductive, noisy and unfair to the developers.
>
> You might not have noticed, but making points on debian-user against
> systemd-in-general or systemd-as-adopted-by-Debian is not making a case
> for a systemd-less Debian (much the contrary), it is not either making a
> case for a revert of the TC decision (much the contrary). The only way
> to make a case for a systemd-less Debian is to _do_it_ !
>
> In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about
> Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these
> discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously.
>
> OdyX
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: