Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
> But actually, I dislike (3) even more, for the reasons detailed in the
> subthread at [4]. I value standardization a lot. I think that this is
> one of the main things that Debian provides. (3) is a big step towards
> diminishing the importance of a common policy, by pushing important
> technical decisions that affect standardization to the respective
> maintainers. I think that all packages must support the default init
> system (except in very specific cases), and we shouldn't allow
> maintainers to decide otherwise because they think it's best for their
> packages. (yeah, the wording in the amendment goes slightly further, but
> I don't think it goes far enough -- also, we have existing procedures to
> deal with cases where it makes sense to deviate from a common policy).
I too value standardization. Judging by decisions taking by other large
distributions and upstream development, a fifth, "only support systemd
as init system" would thus have been the most sensible option. But for
political reasons that's sadly not realistic.
I read option 3 as saying that all packages have to support the default
init system and *on top of that* they may, at the maintainer's
convenience, support other init systems. This is as close to a more
sensible fifth option we're likely to get at the moment.
Maybe once things have calmed down and people notice that the moon
did not fall just because we changed default init system it might be
viable to formally excise sysvinit scripts, but for now I think that
option 3 is far better than option 2.
Kind regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: