Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA384
Ian Jackson dixit:
>I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
(d-d-a would have been nice, but this time I found it in time.)
>** Begin Proposal **
>
>0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The technical committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
>
> This GR seeks to preserve the freedom of our users now to select an
> init system of their choice, and the project's freedom to select a
> different init system in the future. It will avoid Debian becoming
> accidentally locked in to a particular init system (for example,
> because so much unrelated software has ended up depending on a
> particular init system that the burden of effort required to change
> init system becomes too great). A number of init systems exist, and
> it is clear that there is not yet broad consensus as to what the
> best init system might look like.
>
> This GR does not make any comment on the relative merits of
> different init systems; the technical committee has decided upon the
> default init system for Linux for jessie.
>
>1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
>
> For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
> policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
>
>2. Loose coupling of init systems
>
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
> pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
>
> * alternative init system implementations
> * special-use packages such as managers for init systems
> * cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init
> systems
>
> provided that these are not themselves required by other software
> whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system.
>
> Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
> the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
> consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
> users. So the lack of support for a particular init system does not
> excuse a bug nor reduce its severity; but conversely, nor is a bug
> more serious simply because it is an incompatibility of some software
> with some init system(s).
>
> Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
> to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.
>
>3. Notes and rubric
>
> This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
> (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override
> clause in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February.
>
> The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie
> stands undisturbed.
>
> However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text
> in sections (1) and (2) above.
>
>** End Proposal **
Seconded.
bye,
//mirabilos
- --
<diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
<igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't
ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't
obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (MirBSD)
iQIcBAEBCQAGBQJUQNh+AAoJEHa1NLLpkAfg9x0QAIvGeyKQhtseT3NYo6ySd45h
OqISkbeLQnSmCdpbtVlq6PFEaXlNYFnUiXr1//wOrcZAiDocx5iT+jPjULznLoaL
BSRO/vFLUkbmix5tIyYiI3AymXb5KYR0c8JUAvyTChuFf0feavXt0Ew0zMxANBma
zKTgnC2TJDAwJHu34kE2KwhidQtpKwi8Nyv9FsnMN1e2UvpBnEspgT+y86fS7wxT
X7VWSObqpOupTvHV7LTogTP5e6p4AX7E+MC3TOOUtbWzFNd1eSlVxBuQirhlxg1M
0vxgjeb2PhdMGOLpuFtrJdkEcWXOeDwnOKIDRVg01Q1OPLIuMZz9i7aba0gmkc+/
kMp05cV1/pTDuKMZpRB35qmzWbDqRGBdnsQQn0yoEcL4uoXD8Mv/PwpymRExEwMG
ODNkm4L1vqQ9NbxNxGzd1HjVIlFut+E+Z4uXysLpLmm+DqwfDEscEsCzaEOWykTt
0l4exBgmZTRNLxXA42ctbpFqISQu0oGBBj8R7U4o3NO6UUlE1MEPIEwAurYBiPFi
ykTNARS4rlFwNmAuiIgcBWJMmM96pYgfOMf0SG6Io3uCjkHD2qNnaKqSnDTuChUL
0KKmJQHlOWeYCzZNEuHxk5+2ALTBMlptQhidUXpepg000mBnE+L1ukexbwXYuxQd
0PhxIoMChD2ZDv3YJu8K
=f6kG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: