Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit :
> On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit :
> >> Did I miss something?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot,
> > that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO.
> >
> > Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as
> > such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won
> > their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that "Option 1 (…) won by
> > default" is factually wrong. It's summary was not "init policy
> > stands" either.
>
> This is only my interpretation as an armchair observer, also in the US
> called "Monday morning quarterback."
>
> It was a policy vote.
No; absolutely not; it was a General Resolution. Debian doesn't have
"policy votes" (the Debian Policy updating process is based on consensus
evaluation through Policy amendments "seconding", see the debian-policy
list).
> The only "results" that matter are their effect on Debian Policy,
> right? The rest is academic.
That's IMHO a completely biased way to look at this GR and its results:
especially when one message carried by the winning option is "we should
not use GRs to set technical policy".
I invite you to go read Russ Allbery's interpretation for a good reading
of the results.
https://lists.debian.org/<871toyj2bh.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>
> The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying
> or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision
Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the
winning option didn't, for example.
> 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:
9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was
designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at
the time, nothing more. Putting some "was designed to prevent problems
posed by systemd" in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very
least, misleading.
> (…) so Option 1 was a non-controversial interpretation of Debian
> Policy (as I read the -vote discussion).
I don't _at_all_ read the -vote discussion that way. Option 1 was
considered highly problematic because (amongst other problems) it was
creating a _new_ technical requirement through GR.
> Option 1 therefore wins by default, especially if the (apparent)
> consensus about init coupling being a bug is affirmed in practice.
I don't understand how you can reach this conclusion. Option 1 was the
least preferred amongst non-FD options.
OdyX
Reply to: