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

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

[Disclaimer: I am not a Debian Developer so have no formal power to propose anything.]

Sam Hartman wrote:
Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity
Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
Choice 3: systemd  without Diversity as a Priority

I think that one choice is missing here. Could you please include something like this, just to see how many people are THAT radical? P.S. myself, I wouldn't vote for this even if I had a vote.

Choice 4: systemd without Diversity at all

The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are nowadays the preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service. Packages should include service units. At the same time, the Debian project recognizes that maintainers and upstream developers are sometimes unwilling or unable to provide high-quality support (or any support) for alternative init systems in their packages, do not test that their packages work under such init systems, and it is not realistic to expect the situation to improve. Allowing substandard support for non-systemd init systems would be against the project goals, worse than no support at all. Therefore, for Bullseye, alternative init systems should be removed from the archive together with everything that becomes useless due to that, e.g. initscripts that have an equivalent systemd unit.

Debian is still committed to working with derivatives that make different choices about init systems.

Alexander E. Patrakov

Reply to: