Re: My analysis of the proposals
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 19:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Sysvinit has worked for over 20 years. Yes, it has warts, but the warts
>
> > I therefore disagree in the strongest terms to make this be about the
> > position of sysvinit, except in so far as it is part of an abstract
> > group of "not systemd" options that we are trying to decide upon.
>
> I don't understand what point you're trying to make. My point was that
> what actual conflict there is, is in practice conflict between those
> who want to stay with sysvinit, and those who want to use systemd; and
> therefore the most practically important part of a resolution is how it
> would apply to sysvinit support. Your message first contains a defense
> of sysvinit, then a claim that "therefore" it should not be considered
> to be about sysvinit. I don't see how that "therefore" would logically
> follow.
I grant you that I could have quoted better. Allow me to try to do that
now.
You wrote, in a message upthread, the following:
> [...] I disagree: it's perfectly reasonable to consider sysv init
> scripts obsolete, and consider "try to keep sysvinit at 2014 levels
> indefinitely" activity a dead end.
>
> Note that I'm not saying that people shouldn't develop alternatives to
> systemd. But to be taken seriously, they'd need to display some real
> progress beyond sysvinit (and Upstart). Just "this allows to boot
> without systemd" is not a worthwhile "alternative".
This to me framed the rest of what you wrote, also in later messages. I
should have replied to the above message rather than the later one, but
I guess I was not careful enough. Sorry about that.
Anyway, my point is that even if you think that sysvinit is now no
longer a valid option, that is an opinion that reasonable people could
disagree with.
For those who think that sysvinit is good enough, and that the problems
for which systemd provides a solution are not problems to begin with,
there is nothing wrong with the premise of "try to keep sysvinit at 2014
levels indefinitely", on the contrary. So, while it's a valid question
for Debian to decide whether to continue to support alternative
solutions to systemd, I don't think it's reasonable for someone who is
not involved with any of the alternatives to decide whether one of the
available options is valuable to begin with.
As such, I don't think, and vehemently disagree with your stated
proposal, that we should decide anything on sysvinit in particular,
other than through the more general question of "should Debian support
anything that is not systemd".
Thanks,
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: