Hi, After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again, I came to the conclusion that I wanted to publically withdraw my support for Choice 2, after re-reading it several times and sleeping over it. So why do I dislike choice 2? Choice 2 has two paragraphs I disagree with, rather strongly by now: ----begin part 1 Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to merge any contributions for support of any init system, and to add that support themselves if they're willing and capable of doing so. In particular, package maintainers should put a high priority on merging changes to support any init system which is the default on one of Debian's non-Linux ports. ----end part 1 ----begin part 2 There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if that loss is considered acceptable by the package maintainer and the package is still basically functional, but Debian's standard requirement to support smooth upgrades from wheezy to jessie still applies, even when the system is booted with sysvinit. ----end part 2 So, about part 1 I disagree with telling maintainers what to do, that they should priorize supporting other init systems. IMO thats a.) completly up to the maintainer and b.) I think prioritizing security fixes and usability features and plain simple features is probably most always more beneficial for the average user. Or: whatever it is, but I hardly doubt it's wise to always prioritize support for whatever niche initsystem. So (IMNSHO anymore) this is stupid advice (with a "should" statement no less) harming our software and our users. I blame lost focus due to a distorted "discussion" for this. And part 2 is too vague and broad at the same time, and also unrealistic given the circumstances (eg wanting to release in 2015). Again, I think these words aim and prioritize a rather unimportant (and unspecific) feature (and whats a smooth upgrade anyway? IMO a reboot is part of a smooth upgrade as only after a reboot I know the system can be rebooted safely...) and take away the opportunity to do the right thing instead. Choice 2 is certainly better than choice 1, which completly unacceptably tells maintainers they have to support (and provide) a removed legacy upstream feature. Or better: invent a new system which they have no interest to create. IOW: those who believe in choice 1 think they can tell others to write patches (and how!). Which is soo much out of bounds with Debians ideals and practices since over 20 years that I'm speechless. I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian, someone who perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte decision (instead of accepting a group decission of a group which he is part of) and thus deciced to beat Debian into shape via this GR - and who has already announced that he will not keep quiet if he looses the GR and only will be quiet if he wins. (I'm happy to provide the message-id for this... but I'm sure people do rememeber.) This makes me quite very sad. From a responsible and reasonable tech-ctte member I would have expected (and I still expect!) to see the bias and act accordingly, as in: step back. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.