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

Re: Why focus on systemd?

On 11/23/2014 06:48 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
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

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

Or just use a testing version of the installer, and then there's the
Jessie-ignore wild card, which was agreed to be liberally applied
because none nobody wants to play lawyer. In the end I guess the issue
is put to rest if policy is allowed to stand through Jessie+1 freeze,
and overturning takes two thirds majority if I understand correctly.

As things stand multi-init support looks good and the best way for
systemd opponents to be their own worst enemy is to buy into the
notion that their side has "lost."

Reply to: