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

Re: Wouter and Gergely: software monopoly vs diversity

On 03/17/2012 06:46 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 09:01:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> In some cases, of course, that isn't the case, and then things get
>>> somewhat more complex. A good example on that is the systemd discussion
>>> on -devel currently: making systemd the default and required init
>>> implementation would, in the current state of things, instantly axe the
>>> kFreeBSD port. I am of the opinion that this simple fact therefore rules
>>> out systemd as the default and required init implementation for Debian;
>>> but it looks as if not everyone shares that opinion currently.
>> I think you will find that debootstrap supports installing different
>> packages on different architectures.
> Yes, but it's not about debootstrap.
> If an init system that is incompatible with our current default init
> system becomes the only supported init system, then architectures on
> which that init system doesn't work, suddenly have no working init
> anymore.
> having a choice of multiple init implementations is indeed a good way of
> fixing the issue, but that's not what some of the proponents of systemd
> seem to be arguing for, and it's not what's relevant for this particular
> question.

AFAICS one is requesting to change the default to a dependency based
boot system as the early boot gets less and less reliable (networking as
the key example). The remaining issue seems to be choosing between
upstart and systemd as default. Obviously making sure initscripts keep
working will get harder and it's up to the ports that don't support the
default init system to choose the lesser of two evils (porting the
default init system or making sure initscripts keep working) IMHO.

Opposing evolution because some architectures don't follow it, will
probably only result in more tension. All ports have to evolve due to
changed circumstances. It's only when they do not that the cry to not
support them officially anymore gets louder and louder AFAICT.



Reply to: