On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:51:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Honestly, I was a bit surprised that Steve thinks the above's a good > idea, given I wrote it from the (my) perspective of wanting to support > multiple init systems within Debian; and my understanding is his > opinion is that that's kind-of nuts. I think that's pretty great > through, especially in that it affirms my naive faith that drilling > down into technical details is a good way of achieving consensus > amongst people with very different goals and political/philosophical > stances... ;)
:) So to expand on where I'm coming from: I think that it's important to choose a default for jessie, and that it's important that this not be sysvinit; and I think whatever init system we choose for jessie will wind up having a significant boost in momentum within Debian which will give it staying power for a long time to come, and the non-default init systems will receive little if any attention. But I don't think the TC decision should be a *permanent* one; as you say, there's always a next next-generation to think about. So I think we shouldn't have any particular init system marked as Essential: yes. Indeed, sysvinit being marked Essential: yes was an obstacle for upstart in Debian for quite a while; less so for systemd because the systemd maintainers made the expedient - but IMHO technically undesirable - decision to split all conflicting files into a separate package. So that's to e). f) is the sort of thing I think should be time limited to jessie; g) seems obviously correct as far as it goes, but I think we might quibble on the details of what packages are allowed to do this and why, because one of the important features of Debian is that you can install nearly anything from the archive together on the same system. Having packages with mutually incompatible dependencies on specific init systems would undermine this badly. And c) and d) are completely aligned with what I've been arguing (perhaps poorly) that should be done with logind integration, because it's relevant even if we don't adopt upstart as the default, as long as we want to have non-Linux ports going forward. So while I don't want to encourage the project to divide its efforts across multiple different init systems in jessie, I think the particular points you raise here are good ones, and I would only quibble on some of the minor details. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
