Re: Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi,
Svante Signell:
>
> Why do you cut out the most important part of that message? You all
> trigged on the first part, I should not have mentioned any company at
> all, sorry :(
>
Oh well, if you insist:
>>> The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then,
>>> until alternatives have stabilized :) (and systemd/uselessd is deferred
>>> to PID 2). PID 1 should be as small as possible, see a proposed
>>> implementation in: http://ewontfix.com/14/
The first sentence is a non-sequitur. We're not the ones who drop support
for sysvinit, Upstream does that. For the moment we're working on things
like systemd-shim to mitigate that decision. What else do you want us to
do instead, keep old versions of Gnome (and its dependencies, like
ConsoleKit :-/ ) (and KDE and whatever else) around and working? not likely.
The second sentence expresses your personal opinion without arguing in
its favor. IMHO http://ewontfix.com/14/ is misguided if not wrong; the
"implementation" will not support a couple of use cases that happen to be
important for some of us. Like restarting init after you upgrade your libc,
or cleanly shutting down your system, or starting an emergency shell if
/etc/rc fails to run for whatever reason.
Yeah, if systemd ever dies you get an automatic kernel restart. So? If your
PID2 fails under this implementation, you get a hung system with no way to
reboot it. Which is worse.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
Reply to: