Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> > would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
> > make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie + 1.
>
> Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled
> in a way that your proposal would prevent happening?
As far as I'm aware the current situation in jessie is fine as far as
this GR goes.
There are some bugs with the dependency handling which means that
sometimes the packaging tools do very surprising and undesirable
things, but they are fixable, generally not RC and anyway not directly
addressed by this GR.
So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
release at all.
However there have been a number of bugs already (now fixed), and
persistent misunderstandings. For example:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/10/msg00163.html
"The necessity to depend on (and coexist with) pm-utils is imho
gone with Debian's move to systemd"
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762116#11
"The only problem here is trying to support multiple init systems.
Linux is not about choice."
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/10/msg00411.html
"It is there because upstream requires it. There is no GNOME
without systemd. This is not specific to Debian."
In some of these cases the rhetoric is very alarming; others are
mistakes of some kind. But, it is evident that we have not
communicated clearly enough our commitment to diversity.
Ian.
Reply to: