[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

Sam Hartman writes:
> At this point, the question is whether the choices that need to be on
> the ballot are represented in this draft GR.
> ----------------------------------------
> version 2330c05afa4
> Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
> continues to be something that the project values.  With one
> exception, the Debian Project affirms the current policy on init
> scripts and starting daemons (policy 9.3.2, 9.11).

I would not recommend referring to the "current policy" as it is unclear
what that is.  For example one of the Policy maintainers wrote:

| The current Policy text is a mess, and everything it says on the topic is
| essentially accidental, being left over from text that was added to
| clarify how to support upstart, before the TC decision on the default init
| system.
+---[ https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87a79jjiug.fsf@hope.eyrie.org ]

That doesn't seem to be something that should be affirmed.

> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
> Technologies such as elogind that facilitate exploring

systemd-shim and elogind?  It's not like elogind is the only fork of
systemd-logind ;-)

> Choice 3: systemd  without Diversity as a Priority
> Debian is committed to working with derivatives that make different
> choices about init systems.  As with all our interactions with
> downstreams, the relevant maintainers will work with the downstreams to
> figure out which changes it makes sense to fold into Debian and which
> changes remain purely in the derivative.

I don't think Debian should do such a specific commitment (also not in
Choice 2).  It's also a separate problem.


Reply to: