Patrick Ouellette <poue...@debian.org> writes: > We do tell users of Debian what to do - that's part of the problem right > now. We told the users they will switch init systems, and a large > portion (or at least a vocal portion) don't want to.
Well, no, we didn't. We said that there would be a different default, which is not the same thing. The project hasn't made a decision about switching, and also, at present, sysvinit is still fully supported (modulo the normal pre-release bugs). > The current systemd / GR issue would not be happening if the project had > not said the default init system shall be <init system>. Had the > project said we have the following init systems available: <list of init > systems> and let the other package dependencies drive the user's > selection then users would fell there was a little more choice in the > matter. > Right now, GNOME seems to be the primary driver for requiring systemd. > If you don't use a graphical environment, you don't need systemd but you > are forced to at least install it on a new build. Various people were discussing the installer experience elsewhere, and whether enough users care about this to warrant making a sysvinit install an option directly in the installer. I don't think this is any sort of fudamental decision we've already made; it's a debate over UI experiences. In other words, I don't think this is anywhere near as central to the argument as you seem to think. If I'm wrong, that's great news -- if all of this argument could go away by just tweaking the installer UI, that would be fantastic. But I'm dubious. > If there are two opposing sides, then there are two maintainers willing > to maintain the packages. If there are not, the package without a > maintainer looses by default. Ah, see, I also believe this, which is exactly why I'm so upset about the current GR. The proposed GR (the first option) is exactly about overriding the normal practice that the package without a maintainer loses by default, and about *forcing* the people who aren't using sysvinit to work on maintaining it. This is one of the fundamental divisions in the project right now. Of course, proponents of it probably even disagrees with my characterization of it, because we're *also* fundamentally disagreeing over even what the proposed GR actually does. It really is deep disagreements all the way down. > I don't recall Debian every saying we will support package <package> > forever and ever. Exactly, and that's why some of us are aghast at a GR that basically says that about sysvinit, except cast in terms to try to make it seem like that's not what it actually says. > Waiting implies lack of movement - this is not what I was saying. I say > allow the natural evolution to play out. GNOME wants to require systemd > and someone packages systemd - great - allow it AS AN OPTION, NOT A > REQUIREMENT for all. Similarly with sysvinit - it has maintainers, > allow it as an option. This means that you and I are basically in agreement, and I suspect you'll find that you're basically in agreement with most of the people on the systemd "side." That's pretty much the position that I've been arguing, and the position that I believe the current GR is trying to reverse by forcing GNOME, and every other package in Debian, to support sysvinit. The only remaining thing about which we may disagree is that I think the installer needs to pick *something* that gets installed by default, and that the average user isn't going to care or know enough to pick something. (I would like to see the inability to select sysvinit via such install methods as debootstrap fixed before the release; I think that's just a bug.) > The issue we should be tackling is not which init system to force on the > users, but the higher level "what is the minimum functionality and API a > Debian init system MUST provide" to allow it to declare Provides: > init-system in its control file. That sounds like a great discussion to have, from my perspective, and the discussion that I was hoping we could have following the TC (and that I was then unable to try to drive due to a lot of non-Debian life stuff on my part). But I don't think that's the discussion that the GR is having, or that most of the systemd arguments are focused on. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lhneeq53....@hope.eyrie.org
