On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:28:55AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > I think that we should either decide that > > 1) NetworkManager should support elogind > > or > > 2) That we haven't seen enough development of alternatives to systemd > and the project consensus on the GR has changed.
Personally, I think both of these options are terrible and will fail to fix the situation long term. There are people in Debian who would rather not see that they have to carry init scripts in their packages. For better or for worse, these init scripts are a relic of the past for such people, and they do not want to have to work on them. And while Debian does have some ways of collaborating across package boundaries, it's not really something we are very good at, culturally. Given that the GR has given init scripts lower priority nowadays, dropping the init script is not an RC bug anymore, and therefore people in this group feel that it's just fine to drop their init scripts and let people who care about alternatives deal with the fallout of that. At the same time, there are people in Debian who would rather not run systemd on their systems, and who want to put in the work to make sure that some alternative (of whatever form they prefer) is usable and available in Debian. These developers seem willing to fix bugs when they appear, but for reasons they've explained elsewhere in the thread are unwilling to group all the sysvinit-specific stuff in a single package and deal with it that way. It feels to me that any solution that prescribes that people in the first group need to do something which means they can't actually drop the init scripts, or alternatively any solution which does not provide a clear way forward for people in the second group on how they will be able to do what they would like to achieve, is doomed to failure. People in the first group are not going to magically change their mind and want to put in the work. Any solution that prescribes that they have to will fail the constitutional requirement that nobody can be forced to do anything they do not want. People in the second group are not going to magically change their mind and want to stop using something not systemd. Any solution that prescribes that they have to will fail the very same constitutional requirement. I think whatever the TC comes up with will need to incorporate the valid needs and wants of both groups if it is going to succeed in settling the argument. Both the solutions which you suggest fail to meet this bar, from where I'm standing. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
