Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

[Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org>]

Russ Allbery writes:
> Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
>> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 15:08 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>>> Unless the project or relevant parties have agreed otherwise, systemd
>>> facilities, where they exist and are stable and supported by the
>>> systemd maintainers, should be preferred over Debian-specific ways of
>>> solving the same problem unless the Debian approach has clear and
>>> obvious advantages.
>
>> I don't think this is really what we might want: when there are multiple
>> competing options, Debian-specific or not, developed under the systemd
>> umbrella or not, which on Debian packagers decide to use should only be
>> on merit, i.e. there shouldn't be an implicit "we choose systemd by
>> default".
>
> This is the reason why I put "supported by the systemd maintainers" here,
> although that may not be sufficient to address your concern.  But the idea
> I had in mind was that the decision of whether to support the systemd
> facility would be an informed choice that takes into account concerns like
> that.

It's mostly that it pushes systemd preference a bit more than my
preference, mostly because the short text also reads "Focus on systemd
for [...] other facilities", but I have no preference for systemd over
other implementations for "other facilities".

I see value in cross-distribution collaboration which might be an
advantage of solutions developed under the systemd umbrella, but that's
not inherent so: it's the same for any other non-Debian specific
implementation.

Debian-specific solutions of course are also still fine if we believe
these to be the best fit to our needs.

Ansgar