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.
Ansgar
Reply to: