Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
On 30 October 2014 04:35, Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> wrote:
> ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>
>>If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over
>>individual systemd dependencies.
> This looks like a great way to encourage people to make systemd
> mandatory just to be done with this once and for all... :-)
This discussion can end for good in two ways:
* Debian declares that user choice of init systems is important and
applications must respect that;
* Debian declares that only systemd is supported;
Any other outcome is likely to cause flare-ups for every new feature
that systemd absorbs. And you just need to read Lennart's blog or
watch the video of systemd presentation from Debconf14 to see that
there is a *lot* of new systemd functionality coming up, much of it in
direct conflict with existing tools, much of it providing (or
promising to provide) some superior functionality and new APIs to use
it.
If you trust systemd upstream create these new features in a way that
does not conflict with other implementations *and* not depend on their
own implementations of these features from other parts of systemd code
*and* that other applications will not depend on those new APIs, then
there is nothing to worry about. However, there is an opinion that the
above does not describe how systemd has been developed so far.
--
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: