Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> If you agree that this is only a matter of general technical policy, and
> that the current state of jessie matches what you would like to see
> after your proposal, couldn't we just agree to withdraw both proposals
> now, and discuss what to do for jessie+1 later?
> If someone makes changes to dependencies between their packages and init
> systems that break this statu quo in jessie, you could still reintroduce
> your GR proposal during the freeze. But I think that this threat would
> be enough to maintain statu quo until we release (also, it is unlikely
> that the release team would allow such changes to be introduced during
> the freeze).
> What do you think?
I can see why that is tempting.
But this resolution is not only important within Debian, and not only
It is also important feedback for upstreams, and our peer distros and
downstreams. At the moment there is a prevailing rhetoric that
systemd is inevitable and everyone will (have to) be using it. The
TC's decision in February lent weight to that impression
(inadvertantly but entirely predictably). This impression has been
repeatedly put forth on Debian lists, and indeed elsewhere. (I gave
some references earlier.)
And this GR is also important for jessie+1 and the future generally.
I don't want to postpone having this conversation until things have
become yet more difficult, and face the argument that what we want is
impossible for jessie+1.
If there is a problem with this GR it is that it is too late. Making
it later is just going to allow the dispute to escalate. And in the
meantime we will have to put up with endless guerilla warfare from the