Bug#727708: init system question before the technical committee

[Josselin Mouette]

Hi Ian,

Le jeudi 31 octobre 2013 à 15:01 +, Ian Jackson a écrit : 
> Perhaps it would be good if the camp leader(s) for each camp would
> reply with a summary of:
>   - the status of their own main arguments: are you mostly done,
>  or do you expect to add more substantial points
>   - the status of their rebuttals: subject of course, to any future
>  changes by the other camps, how close are you to having what
>  you consider a good answer to the other camps' points ?

With some help from the other systemd proponents, I have added today
what I consider the final touch for the systemd statement page. It is
now mostly finished, including the rebuttals, and should only need new
updates for spelling mistakes or minor inaccuracies.

Cheers,
-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1383393052.3011.5.camel@tomoyo

Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

Russ Allbery  writes:
> Steve Langasek  writes:
>
>> For the TC decision, what kind of information are you looking for about
>> the plans, beyond "the Ubuntu developers expect to need to address this
>> before upgrading from systemd logind 204 and will hold at 204 until a
>> correct solution is known"?
>
[...]
>
> If Canonical *is* the sole upstream, the upstream future here is troubling
> to me, particularly given Canonical's current strategic direction towards
> Unity.  To give a specific example of the sort of thing that I'm worried
> about, suppose that GNOME Shell wants a new piece of functionality that
> is, on Red Hat, provided via kernel functionality managed by systemd, but
> Unity has no need for that functionality.  Is Canonical going to develop
> an upstart equivalent in support of GNOME Shell, when it is pushing Unity
> over GNOME Shell?
>
> Maybe this example is very artificial; I know it's not clear what piece of
> functionality would be required from the init system and surrounding
> infrastructure that would be required by GNOME Shell and not Unity.  But I
> think it's at least conceivable given different priorities around such
> things as multiseat, and in any case it provides a concrete example of the
> sort of scenario I'm worried about.

Thanks for finding a nice wording for this. This is also my main concern
in the init systemd discussions: upstart might end up playing catch-up,
but stay behind in the end.

In Lennart's Google+ post referenced earlier in the discussion[1] there
was also an example of new functionality in systemd 205+ that I'm not
sure Canonical has a business interest in supporting (namely "all the
nifty stuff that allows Wayland to run nicely without privs is
implemented in the newer logind versions"). As Canonical has decided to
go with Mir instead of Wayland, these features might not get backported
to their logind fork (unless they are also required there, I don't
know).

So having a more concrete roadmap than "we might just stay at logind 204
forever" from the UpstarT proponents seems very important to me.

  [1] 

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mwlndobg@eisei.43-1.org