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

Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
<snip>

Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of
dedicated users due to this decision.  Possibly another fork, or
possibly another distro.  But Debian will lose users.

1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose
Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types"
place little stock in soothsaying.


It is more than speculation.  Read the posts here - some people
(including me) are already looking for alternatives.  And so are many
companies I know of who have looked at jessie.


2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and
duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the
possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more
users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators"
manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show
that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only*
choice lost users - quite the reverse.


These are the ones who are abandoning Debian.  Some of them came to
Debian because it was one of the last holdouts.  But they see the way
Debian is going also, and don't like it.  They'll probably end up on BSD.


Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as
hard.

At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv.

   But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base.


I never said it was the entire Debian user base.  But even staying with
sysv is only a temporary situation.  They see the handwriting on the
wall - whether you agree with it or not.


Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug
reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init
systems.
Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" -
and I have every confidence they will continue to do so


And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized
pre-packaged) software to the system?



Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind.

Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic:
download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar
./configure; make; make install



Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software
they create?

It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen.  It's much faster to
just copy the files to the appropriate directories.  And since they have
complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what
has to be done when the code is updated.
Not sure what you're arguing about here Jerry. Alien, checkinstall, and equivs are ways to incorporate unpackaged software into the apt ecosystem - for tracking and updating purposes, ./configure, make, install is standard installation from source, bypassing the packaging system. 


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