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

Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>>> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and 
>>>>> specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'.  To represent that 
>>>>> as `all' is IMO misleading.
>>>>> One important difference between `all' and `at least one' is this: 
>>>>> suppose there is some init system that does not support the common 
>>>>> interface you suppose in your point (2).  Saying `all' suggests 
>>>>> that it is somehow the fault of the packages which deal with the 
>>>>> common interface.  This point was raised in the TC discussion.
>>>>> Saying `all' gives the impression that every package must do work 
>>>>> for each init system.  That is why my proposal's wording simply 
>>>>> says that packages are forbidden from requiring `a specific' init 
>>>>> system.
>>>> OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that 
>>>> provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your 
>>>> worries?
>>> There are many ways to twist words, yes. 
>> I think this deserves a better answer.
>> Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To me
>> this looks like a legitimate fork.
>> Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to mean "at least
>> one not-systemd derived"?
> My concern is not systemd specifically - on the contrary I find it great 
> if it brings more choice to Debian, which seems to be the status 
> currently.
> My concern is also not the risk that Debian could be locked into "only 
> two" or "only three" init systems - I believe we need not deal with that 
> until the risk of such scenario eventually becomes realistic - if we 
> then concider such scenario a concern.
> My concern now is to ensure that Debian supports more than a single init 
> system.
> I sincerely hope that I made myself more clear this time, and that you 
> found my response adequate and we can move on.

Not really, I'm afraid (although you're of course free to move on). I am
still wondering, if Debian would support only uselessd and systemd,
would you consider that "more than one init system" or not? And if not,
why not?


GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Reply to: