Re: Why focus on systemd?

[Marty <martyb@ix.netcom.com>]

On 11/24/2014 04:16 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 24 nov 14, 08:02:44, Marty wrote:
> > It was a policy vote. The only "results" that matter are their effect
> > on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic.
> >
> > The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or
> > overturning the policy set by the TC init decision, in anticipation of
> > confusion or disagreement over its effect.
> >
> > Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11,
> > which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind
> > of problems posed by systemd:
> >
> > "However, any package integrating with other init systems must also be
> > backwards-compatible with sysvinit ..."
>
> I think you're missing a perhaps crucial point: the Debian Policy has
> not been updated yet to account for systemd being default, it still
> assumes sysvinit as default.
>
> See #591791, fixed in Policy 3.9.4.0, uploaded on 18 Sep 2012.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

I read a good bit of it.  he first thing I notice is that it didn't
take 9 months to update the policy. Maybe I missed your point.

It looks like a successful application of policy that reinforces my
interpretation, this message in particular:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591791#124

Just to be sure I rechecked 9.11, and it doesn't mention default init,
so why would it be changed? What system besides sysvinit could provide
backwards compatibility to serve the purpose of 9.11?

In the TC discussion of bug #727708 there is talk (on the pro-systemd
side) of hoping to change the policy changing in the future, after
Jessie, but it was clearly not the issue under debate.