On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:22:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> writes:
>...
> > We are in full agreement on that.
>
> > And my point on top of that is that if the CTTE decsion would be that
> > Debian should support multiple init systems, but it does not set a
> > policy limiting strictly what hard dependencies on systemd are allowed,
> > then it would be better if the CTTE would rule that Debian should
> > support only systemd since that's what would anyway happen in practice
> > through package dependencies pretty soon.
>
> And yet there are still people who use Debian without udev (or at least I
> think there is based on debian-devel discussion). Why go out of our way
> to tell those people to go away?
Considering that even the X server package depends on udev, there are
only some niches where it is still possible at all to use Debian on
Linux without udev - and it is slowly evolving into becoming impossible.
> There is a natural process here, where rarely-used configurations slowly
> stop working and people eventually decide not to bother to keep them
> working and move on to other things. Eventually, they may acquire RC bugs
> that no one wants to fix and be dropped, or the package maintenance team
> may decide that they just can't support the configuration any more, make a
> public call for people to step forward and maintain it, and, when that
> call isn't answered, drop support.
>...
The problem is different - with systemd there is a fast process going
on where frequently-used configurations stop working without systemd.
And the problem is exactly that without a strong policy there will not
be RC bugs anywhere - when it is fine for everyone to depend on systemd,
then any bugs demanding support for other init systems can just be
tagged "wontfix" by the Debian maintainer of the package.
> In other words, I would rather be clear about what we consider to be the
> primary technical direction, and the core functionality that we should try
> to support, and let the long tail and personal projects take care of
> themselves. Some of them will fade away, some of them will putter along
> in the background without hurting anyone, and we may be quite surprised by
> one of them becoming a huge asset to the project later on. That's why I
> like the framing of this discussion as deciding the *default*.
Are in your opinion Debian's non-Linux ports part of the core
functionality that we should try to support?
And if yes, with the whole set of Debian's functionality or only with
some specific subset (e.g. only for headless servers)?
AFAIR even the "make logind usable without systemd" discussions don't
mention that this won't make logind available for Debian's non-Linux
ports.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
