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

Re: Tentative summary of the amendments

Hi Uoti,

thanks for your summmary of the situation.

On Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2014, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> In another mail, Ian said that his interpretation is that the init
> system would not only have to be packaged in Debian, but in testing and
> not RC buggy.

yeah, I found this interpration also "interesting"... (eg. that there is room 
for interpretaion... I thought "in Debian" ment sid and could be buggy. Now I 
learn that buggy packages in sid seem to not always be part of Debian... at 
least not in the context of this amendment.) - interesting and a bit scary.
> So even GR proponents agree that software which works with either
> systemd or uselessd would be fine. Yet they want to FORBID packaging
> such software, unless someone packages and integrates uselessd for
> Debian. That's a large amount of work which would be mostly unrelated to
> the software running under those systems. And the proponents are not
> volunteering to do such work.

> That's kind of backwards - the practical effect of the GR is pretty much
> to require that everything must implement sysv scripts, while there are
> init features that should not be considered to be/remain specific to
> systemd but sysvinit does not support. For example, any init system that
> Debian might want to switch to in the future will support systemd-style
> socket activation. Uselessd probably supports it. Of course, support for
> socket activation could be implemented on top of sysvinit - but AFAIK
> the GR proponents are not volunteering to implement that either.
> Before Debian selected its next init system, there were three that could
> reasonably work for a distro like it: sysvinit, Upstart and systemd.
> Most of developers and all of tech-ctte agreed that sysvinit is outdated
> and it was a choice between Upstart and systemd. Now Upstart is not a
> real alternative any more, and no new system has risen to the status of
> a credible contender yet. The GR talks about alternative init systems in
> general, and tells people that they must support at least two, any two
> they like. In practice it allows selecting any two from the set
> {systemd, sysvinit}.
> By making the hurdle as high as requiring that the alternative init
> systems have actually been packaged and integrated in Debian, the
> practical effect of the GR is pretty much "must support sysvinit", tying
> Debian down to support an obsolete system (which even the GR proposer
> agreed "has many longstanding bugs and deficiences", at least before he
> knew that the only remaining alternative was systemd).


I left these paragraphs thinking that some might read them now, who missed 
them before. I have nothing to add.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: