Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Thanks for this.  No-one else has said anything.  Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
> 
> To make it concrete I am going to post texts of those two options.  If
> people come forward to say they support or or both of them I will
> formally propose them tomorrow morning (in the hope that the Secretary
> and/or the DPL will allow them on the ballot).  If you support either
> of these options enough, then please formally propose it yourself and
> I will second it tomorrow.
> 
> If no-one else says they are in favour then I will drop this line of
> enquiry entirely (and consequently drop my attempt to force a delay).
> 
> I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
> 
> I have been avoiding reading these threads in the evening because it
> is bad for my sleep.  So I won't see whatever followups are posted
> until mid-morning tomorrow UK time.

Here is what I think Guillem's plus Dmitry's looks like.

NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
website version.  I haven't had time to check that.

-8<-

PRINCIPLES

1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
   and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
   functionality, with their various users, be them humans or other software,
   which is one of the core defining traits of a distribution.

2. We consider portability to different hardware platforms and software
   stacks an important aspect of the work we do as a distribution, which
   makes software architecturally better, more robust and more future-proof.

3. We acknowledge that different upstream projects have different views on
   software development, use cases, portability and technology in general.
   And that users of these projects weight tradeoffs differently, and have
   at the same time different and valid requirements and/or needs fulfilled
   by these diverse views.

4. Following our historic tradition, we will welcome the integration of
   these diverse technologies which might sometimes have conflicting
   world-views, to allow them to coexist in harmony within our distribution,
   by reconciling these conflicts via technical means, as long as there
   are people willing to put in the effort.

5. This enables us to keep serving a wide range of usages of our distribution
   (some of which might be even unforeseen by us). From servers, to desktops
   or deeply embedded; from general purpose to very specifically tailored
   usages. Be those projects hardware related or software based, libraries,
   daemons, entire desktop environments, or other parts of the software
   stack.

INIT SYSTEMS

6. Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
   systemd continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST
   work with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to
   work exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
   systemd is available.

7. Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
   exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
   and/or will not accept, an init script.


-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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.