On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Whilst I think you have honourable intentions in referring this to tech-ctte,
Thank you, I'm happy to hear it came across that way (it's how it was
done, FWIW)
> I can't help but think it's premature.
Perhaps.
>
> The systemd maintainers have never said that they believe systemd is ready to
> be the default init nor whether they could handle supporting it if the
> decision was made out of their hands.
Technically speaking, I mean, fedora has been using it, as has a host of
other distros. Seems to work OK for them, I'm willing to bet we can make
it work too.
Also, to this point, if the systemd folks don't see this as something
that can handle pid1, and the maintainers say "We won't support
{logind,d-bus shutdown} without pid1", we have a massive problem with
GNOME depending on this.
Either way, *that* in of itself is something ctte-worthy, without init
judgement (although deciding init at the same time is something that in
so incremental from there, might as well do both)
> They have proposed a release goal that is probably a necessary prerequisite
> for default init but has not yet been achieved. (I wouldn't expect it to be,
> yet. We aren't releasing for ages.)
>
> If asked what init system should be default *now* the only reasonable answer
> is "stick" but that isn't a useful question.
>
> I'm worried asking and answering the question at such an early stage is going
> to prevent it being asked again at a more appropriate time.
It's perfectly OK for ctte to say "Well, this systemd thing is nice, but
the maintainers can't do this now. We'll re-evaluate in 6 months", or
something, if that's what they see.
> It does feel like we've spent a long long time discussing these things but as
> the saying goes, "talk is cheap, show me the code". Even a *lot* of talk is
> cheap.
I'm honestly just super tired of this thread. It keeps coming up time
after time after time after time.
I don't care if they decide something that I don't agree with -- at all --
I'd just prefer that we had *a* decision, backed with facts, that has a
Debian-ish argument behind it.
Much love,
T
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org>
: :' : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
