Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> My proposal provides a clear escalation path, and clear guidance to the
> TC. No useful new facilities will be blocked forever.
> It is true that adoption of new facilities does in my proposal depend on
> some discussion. But indeed that is reasonable. There aren't (or
> shouldn't be) other fields of our distro where adoption of new features
> which require new work by a significant number of people, can be done
> without any kind of discussion.
> Russ, Sam has mentioned your name. Are you happy with the situation
> that is being set up with option B ?
I think I would rather have the clear path forward your proposal lays out,
with a 6-12 month delay, than to have my options B or C that set up Policy
discussions for each new feature while maintainers move forward in advance
of Policy. I think all these options can be made to work, but your
proposal, as well as options A and D from my original message, are much
cleaner and more straightforward and I think would lead to less arguing
and fewer demands on the Policy process.
My personal preference is for the project to either decide that we're
going to use systemd facilities by default and sysvinit is going to break,
or to decide that we're going to require standardized interfaces with the
option for other communities to provide their own implementation of those
interfaces and to delay adoption of the interface for a reasonable length
of time. The second is a lot more work than the first, to be clear, but I
think it's work we can do.
That said, I think all of these options are better than the current
situation of no guidance, so I'll vote all of these options above further
discussion.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: