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

Re: Why focus on systemd?

On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

> Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit :
>> On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

>> 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.

But without the options which did, would there have been any point in
the vote's taking place at all?

I think this one was a fair characterization of the GR proposal, and
thus the vote on it, as a whole.

>> 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.

While this may be true...

> Putting some "was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd" in
> this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading.

...this is, itself, misleading.

He did not say that the policy was designed to "prevent problems posed
by systemd".

He said the policy was designed to "prevent the kind of problems posed
by systemd" - or, to paraphrase, that A: it was designed to prevent
problems of a certain kind, and B: systemd poses problems of that kind.

Whether or not he's wrong about what the policy was designed to do, to
assert that he's asserting that the policy was designed to oppose
systemd (which is the sense I infer from your comment) would simply be
putting words in his mouth.

   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: