Re: Why focus on systemd?

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

Marty wrote:
> On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
> > > Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.debian.user@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
> > > > The winner was "developers will work it out themselves" i.e. Debian 
> > > > won.
> > >
> > > Another reading being "The Developpers won, Debian lost"...
> >
> > Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to
> > acknowledge the view of Debian.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1]
> Option 2: change init policy *LOST*
> Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost*
> Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON*
> Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default*
>
> [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe
> this is the real issue

Well... maybe a commitment on the part of the debootstrap maintainers to 
apply & test the existing contributed patch that fixes but #668001, 
sometime real soon after Jessie is released would go a LONG way to 
putting a lot of these issues to rest.

That way, it would be straightforward to preseed a sysvinit based 
install, and maybe everything will just work, or at least we'd have a 
basis for starting to work through the bugs associated with a clean 
sysvinit install that doesn't involve rolling your own version of a 
patched installer.

Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra