Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
On 24 October 2014 15:02, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> However these choices heavily impact our users who (for whatever
> reasons) want or need to use another init system.
>
> No, they don’t. “Wanting another init system” is not a functional need.
> It is a tantrum from people who are confronted to change resistance, but
> we don’t have to cover that requirement per se.
So you want to force everyone to use systemd (by breaking enough
software so that Debian becomes unusable with another init)? There
have been, are and will be people with different requirements that
systemd does not and will not satisfy.
> The default init system should cover all use cases. And apart from a few
> glitches that emerge from the transition, systemd does. This is why
> compatibility has to be ensured in jessie, but post-jessie such a
> requirement doesn’t make sense.
"default init system" is not the same as "the only supported init
system". And that attitude is exactly why such a GR is required.
There was a decision to change the default init system (for new
installations). There has *not* been a decision about switching users
over to systemd on upgrade and there has *not* been a decision about
dropping support for other init systems.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs mailto:aigarius@debian.org
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
| .''`. Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) |
| : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) |
| `. `' Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting |
| `- (http://www.aiteki.com) |
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
Reply to: