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

Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]


Ian Jackson:
> If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those
> who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision.
As opposed to us having this discussion _now_ because some people
apparently cannot accept the fact that Debian works quite well
without it. (Otherwise there would be no "systemd-shim".)

> If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over
> individual systemd dependencies.
No fear-mongering, please.

> That's not the problem.  The problem is the possibility of packages
> wich requires systemd's syslog replacement, its cron replacement, or
> its ntpd replacement.
systemd does not replace syslog. It adds its own logging system which,
like logind (and the logind back-end service implemented by
systemd-as-PID1), adds features which some programmers, like 
those of Gnome/KDE/whoever, want to rely on – not out of spite,
but because it makes their job a whole lot easier.

And if that happens with journald, I fully expect that somebody will step
up and provide a replacement implementation (either of the daemon, or the
underpinnings it needs) that works without systemd-as-pid1. Just like

And this will happen without requiring your GR. Just like systemd-shim.

> This is what system's opponents are calling `lock-in'.  I agree.
This is not lock-in. Lock-in is Adobe pushing a closed standard like Flash
(random example off the top of my head, not intended to be particular to
Adobe) and then refusing to publish the specs.

Debian is free software. If you want a second implementation which does
what you want, the way you want it, then write it yourself. Or motivate
somebody else to do it.

A GR which forces my code to be compatible with Y, even if X is included in
Debian (worse, even if X is the designated stanard way to do <whatever>
in Debian), is not an acceptable form of motivation to me.

I also may be missing something, but in what way would "my code is in
Debian, but if you want to run it you'll have to use X instead of Y"
in any way better for our users than "my code is not in Debian"?
(Assuming it's useful and otherwise desireable code, of course. :-P )

-- Matthias Urlichs

Reply to: