Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

[Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>>> Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and 
>>>>> specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'.  To represent that 
>>>>> as `all' is IMO misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> One important difference between `all' and `at least one' is this: 
>>>>> suppose there is some init system that does not support the common 
>>>>> interface you suppose in your point (2).  Saying `all' suggests 
>>>>> that it is somehow the fault of the packages which deal with the 
>>>>> common interface.  This point was raised in the TC discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying `all' gives the impression that every package must do work 
>>>>> for each init system.  That is why my proposal's wording simply 
>>>>> says that packages are forbidden from requiring `a specific' init 
>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that 
>>>> provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your 
>>>> worries?
>>>
>>> There are many ways to twist words, yes. 
>>
>> I think this deserves a better answer.
>>
>> Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To me
>> this looks like a legitimate fork.
>>
>> Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to mean "at least
>> one not-systemd derived"?
>
> My concern is not systemd specifically - on the contrary I find it great 
> if it brings more choice to Debian, which seems to be the status 
> currently.
>
> My concern is also not the risk that Debian could be locked into "only 
> two" or "only three" init systems - I believe we need not deal with that 
> until the risk of such scenario eventually becomes realistic - if we 
> then concider such scenario a concern.
>
> My concern now is to ensure that Debian supports more than a single init 
> system.
>
> I sincerely hope that I made myself more clear this time, and that you 
> found my response adequate and we can move on.

Not really, I'm afraid (although you're of course free to move on). I am
still wondering, if Debian would support only uselessd and systemd,
would you consider that "more than one init system" or not? And if not,
why not?


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«