Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E
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 mine 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.
Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
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
3. Ideally, packages should should be fully functional with all init
systems. This means (for example) that daemons should ship
traditional init scripts, or use other mechanisms to ensure that
they are started without systemd. It also means that desktop
software should be installable, and ideally fully functional,
4. So failing to support non-systemd systems, where no such support is
available, is a bug. But it is *not* a release-critical bug.
Whether the requirement for systemd is recorded as a formal bug in
the Debian bug system, when no patches are available, is up to the
5. When a package has reduced functionality without systemd, this
should not generally be documented as a (direct or indirect)
Depends or Recommends on systemd-sysv. This is because with such
dependencies, installing such a package can attempt to switch the
init system, which is not the what the user wanted. For example, a
daemon with only a systemd unit file script should still be
installable on a non-systemd system, since it could be started
One consequence of this is that on non-systemd systems it may be
possible to install software which will not work, or not work
properly, because of an undeclared dependency on systemd. This is
unfortunate but trying to switch the user's init system is worse.
We hope that better technical approaches can be developed to
6. We recognise that some maintainers find init scripts a burden and
we hope that the community is able to find ways to make it easier
to add support for non-default init systems. Discussions about the
design of such systems should be friendly and cooperative, and if
suitable arrangements are developed they should be supported in the
usual ways within Debian.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF NON-SYSTEMD SUPPORT WILL BE ACCEPTED
7. Failing to support non-systemd systems when such support is
available, or offered in the form of patches (or packages),
*should* be treated as a release critical bug. For example: init
scripts *must not* be deleted merely because a systemd unit is
provided instead; patches which contribute support for other init
systems (with no substantial effect on systemd installations)
should be filed as bugs with severity `serious'.
This is intended to provide a lightweight but effective path to
ensuring that reasonable support can be provided to Debian users,
even where the maintainer's priorities lie elsewhere. (Invoking
the Technical Committee about individual patches is not sensible.)
If the patches are themselves RC-buggy (in the opinion of,
initially, the maintainer, and ultimately the Release Team) then of
course the bug report should be downgraded or closed.
8. Maintainers of systemd components, or other gatekeepers (including
other maintainers and the release team) sometimes have to evaluate
technical contributions intended to support non-systemd users. The
acceptability to users of non-default init systems, of quality
risks of such contributions, is a matter for the maintainers of
non-default init systems and the surrounding community. But such
contributions should not impose nontrivial risks on users of the
default configuration (systemd with Recommends installed).
NON-INIT-RELATED DECLARATIVE SYSTEMD FACILITIES
9. systemd provides a variety of facilities besides daemon startup.
For example, creating system users or temporary directories.
Current Debian approaches are often based on debhelper scripts.
In general more declarative approaches are better. Where
- systemd provides such facility
- a specification of the facility (or suitable subset) exists
- the facility is better than the other approaches available
in Debian, for example by being more declarative
- it is reasonable to expect developers of non-systemd
systems including non-Linux systems to implement it
- including consideration of the amount of work involved
the facility should be documented in Debian Policy (by textual
incorporation, not by reference to an external document). The
transition should be smooth for all users. The non-systemd
community should be given at least 6 months, preferably at least 12
months, to develop their implementation. (The same goes for any
If policy consensus cannot be reached on such a facility, the
Technical Committee should decide based on the project's wishes as
expressed in this GR.
BEING EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER
10. In general, maintainers of competing software, including
maintainers of the various competing init systems, should be
accomodating to each others' needs. This includes the needs and
convenience of users of reasonable non-default configurations.
11. Negative general comments about software and their communities,
including both about systemd itself and about non-systemd init
systems, are strongly discouraged. Neither messages expressing
general dislike of systemd, nor predictions of the demise of
non-systemd systems, are appropriate for Debian communication fora;
likewise references to bugs which are not relevant to the topic at
Communications on Debian fora on these matters should all be
encouraging and pleasant, even when discussing technical problems.
We ask that communication fora owners strictly enforce this.
12. We respectfully ask all Debian contributors including maintainers,
Policy Editors, the Release Team, the Technical Committee, and the
Project Leader, to pursue these goals and principles in their work,
and embed them into documents etc. as appropriate.
(This resolution is a position statement under s4.1(5).)
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.