Re: My analysis of the proposals
On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 21:37 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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
I don't doubt that there exist people for whose needs an existing
sysvinit system can be perfectly adequate. Just like there are people
for whose needs an old 80286 computer is adequate. But I don't think
that contradicts with "is obsolete" or "is a technological dead end".
There are reasons why support for some software should be low priority
even if it's not yet literally absolutely useless for everyone.
> 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".
I still don't really see why you disagree with my view (not exactly a
"proposal").
Which of these do you disagree with?
fact: The conflicts that occur in practice are about sysvinit support.
fact: There is in practice no development of new alternative init
systems happening, and no clear reason to believe that if it
hypothetically did occur, there would be particular problems. Certainly
there are no concrete problems in need of resolution.
consequence: How clearly a decision resolves conflicts is determined by
how clearly it decides the question of sysvinit support.
consequence: Talking about "other init systems" in general is either
misleading, insofar as it's about policies that only have practical
effect through application to sysvinit, or about uncertain
hypotheticals that are in no particular need of resolving at this time.
The relevant question now is not "should Debian support anything that
is not systemd", but "should Debian support sysvinit". In case any
promising systems appear in the future, decisions about them are best
left for when it's not arguing about hypotheticals.
Reply to: