Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities"):
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > If we found that the six month delay was repeatedly expiring with no
> > serious attempts at non-systemd implementations of the new features, we
> > could repeal this GR.
> I'm pondering an amendment to copy this option but without the 6 month
> delay clause.
In practice, we (in Debian as a whole) generally delay things for much
longer than that, in order to give people a chance to catch up. To me
it seems fair to ask no more of the people who have to reimplement
things for non-systemd, than we ask of other kinds of people who need
to do work to enable beneficial transitions.
Of course we don't have a set timescale for these other things because
they are usually not fraught. Take as an example new GCC versions,
which you typically get /at least/ 6 months from having a clear notice
of a problem and an ability to see that you have fixed it.
If you just delete the bit about the delay, what will you replace it
with ? If you say 0 delay then it amounts to standardising and
recommending in policy a change which actually makes programs buggy as
soon as you apply it.
We could suggest a per-feature negotiation about implementation
timescale but, please, no.
In other words: is it really not worth waiting a very short time in
Debian terms (1/4 of a release cycle) while adopting a feature, in
order to keep a fair few people much happier ?
FTAOD of course what you propose is up to you.
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.