Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Hello, On Sun 01 Dec 2019 at 11:06AM +02, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'm sorry for the delay. Maybe this reply is moot now that proposal C > has been withdrawn but I wanted to share my personal view of why > another proposal was needed. > > [...] > > Like I said, proposals B and D have a lot of values that you can agree > with. Proposal C doesn't have any what I originally described as > "passion". When talking to other people I realized that proposal C > lacks "vision". Proposals B/D have much more of that > passion/values/vision. > > So looking at the proposals, I just found the offering a bit skewed > because I felt that the proposal that a lot of people want has no > "sway" in comparison with some of the other proposals. > > I hope that explains it. It does -- thanks, to you and to the others who responded to my question. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Hi, On 01.12.19 10:06, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > So there's a lot about proposal B that I like, but at the end of the > day the proposal doesn't sound that different to the status quo. > While it says systemd, there's no 100% commitment (there's no clear > preference over Debian kludges for example, unlike proposal C had); > and while it talks about experimenting, there's no 100% commitment to > supporting other systems. So, in a way, it seems like perpetuating > the current situation, which hasn't been working. Precisely. I use sysvinit, and currently I plan to vote F > FD > B, because even "focus on systemd" is a lot more useful to everyone than the continued churn of submitting patches that then rot in the BTS. If Debian decides to make a clear cut, that at least tells people that they should use and contribute to another distribution, and would be good to know this while the mechanisms are still in place to make this easy for users. It may be worthwhile to have a process for users of derived distributions to maintain packages without direct init dependencies inside Debian, as that is still the majority of packages. The stuff I maintain is largely low-level and the same package can be used for Debian, Devuan and Ubuntu, so it would make sense for me to upload to the root of the distribution tree. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
* Moritz Mühlenhoff [2019-11-30 11:48]: > - Less ambigious, C only talks about service units and preferring other > facilities "if they have clear and obvious advantages" (but we have no > good method to clarify whether e.g. systemd-sysusers fulfills that over > adduser), while F actively endorses tight integration. FWIW, while F endores endorses tight integration, I added a "where appropriate" to allow for some flexibility. I wanted to keep proposal F high-level and leave the exact implementation details to -devel and -policy. > - F is more expressive in terms of why to focus on systemd (like to > collaborate with the 99% of the FLOSS world who settled on systemd) than > C. Yeah, as I just explained in my other email, I found C lacking of sway, vision, passion, or whatever you may call it. -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
* Sean Whitton [2019-11-29 17:52]: > I would be grateful for an informal summary of why proposal F is > thought to be needed on the ballot in addition to proposal C. What > is thought not captured well by Sam's text, but is thought to be > captured well by Martin's text? I'm sorry for the delay. Maybe this reply is moot now that proposal C has been withdrawn but I wanted to share my personal view of why another proposal was needed. When I read through the proposals, there was a lot about proposal B that I liked. It contains a lot of "common sense" stuff like: we want to explore and experiment; people interested in something should do the work; maintainers should review patches. All of that are Debian values that I agree with. And proposal B says that systemd is the main system. So there's a lot about proposal B that I like, but at the end of the day the proposal doesn't sound that different to the status quo. While it says systemd, there's no 100% commitment (there's no clear preference over Debian kludges for example, unlike proposal C had); and while it talks about experimenting, there's no 100% commitment to supporting other systems. So, in a way, it seems like perpetuating the current situation, which hasn't been working. It just seems to lack some finality. (And some people will disagree that it would be similar to the current situation, otherwise Sam wouldn't have proposed it in the first place.) (I have similar feelings about Ian's proposal D, btw. Again, it contains a lot of stuff in the beginning that most people in Debian agree with, but then goes into details that I'm not so sure about.) Okay, so then I read proposal C. And while I believe proposal C is what a lot of people want (i.e. focus on systemd, integrate it more and basically move on), I find the proposal extremely... bland. Like I said, proposals B and D have a lot of values that you can agree with. Proposal C doesn't have any what I originally described as "passion". When talking to other people I realized that proposal C lacks "vision". Proposals B/D have much more of that passion/values/vision. So looking at the proposals, I just found the offering a bit skewed because I felt that the proposal that a lot of people want has no "sway" in comparison with some of the other proposals. I originally wrote a really bad proposal but after talking to some people developed a better understanding of what I was missing in the current proposals and got good ideas on how to frame things (the cross-distro aspect wasn't my idea). I hope that explains it. -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
> I'd like submit the following proposal: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation Seconded. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Hi, On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: I guess my second is not really needed anymore for this, but it's good to have it on the ballot. > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation Standardization and cross-distribution cooperation are kind of conflicting goals, because the only distributions you can effectively cooperate with are the ones following the same standards, so this narrows down the options for cross-distribution cooperation rather than opening them up. So this is effectively a decision to join a crowded bubble, and when Debian does so, we also need a clear picture of what makes us unique or interesting inside that bubble, so we can continue to attract volunteers. - What differentiates us from Ubuntu? Ubuntu took that leap a few years ago, and they have a reputation of being a strong desktop distribution, some people seem to be using them for servers as well, and they are virtually nonexistant outside of that. Can we provide equally strong support to desktop users, and can we keep those users whose use cases we demote in priority? - What are the skills we require from maintainers? Do we still require maintainers to be proficient in shell scripting, in addition to systemd incantations, or should we take advantage of the "flattened" learning curve? > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. I share this observation, and this puts Debian with its long release cycle into an awkward position, as we need to find a balance between a stable core system and providing the necessary capabilities for add-on software. Of course that happens however we decide on this GR, but the next question, should this option win, would be a backports policy: do we want to encourage writing compatibility code for systemd features not yet in a stable release, or do we want users to upgrade systemd instead, and if the former, can this be coordinated with distributions that have the same problem? Simon
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Sean Whitton schrieb: > I would be grateful for an informal summary of why proposal F is thought > to be needed on the ballot in addition to proposal C. What is thought > not captured well by Sam's text, but is thought to be captured well by > Martin's text? >From my PoV: - Less ambigious, C only talks about service units and preferring other facilities "if they have clear and obvious advantages" (but we have no good method to clarify whether e.g. systemd-sysusers fulfills that over adduser), while F actively endorses tight integration. - F is more expressive in terms of why to focus on systemd (like to collaborate with the 99% of the FLOSS world who settled on systemd) than C. Cheers, Moritz
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:44:08AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal > > C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out > > if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a > > criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical > > differences I am enclined to withdraw Proposal C. > > Without having thought this through, I have a gut feeling that you > could withdraw all of your original proposals, because we now have 3 > clear proposals, worded by the respective proponents, for the 3 > general directions: Dmitry's pro multiple init systems variant, Ian's > compromise proposal, and now tbm's clear pro systemd text. I think from a constitutional point of view, proposal A can not be withdrawn, it would stop the whole GR, but he should instead accept one of the others to replace it. Kurt
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes: gregor> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with >> proposal C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying >> to figure out if there are any practical differences. Understand >> this is not a criticism of this proposal, but if there are no >> significant practical differences I am enclined to withdraw >> Proposal C. gregor> Without having thought this through, I have a gut feeling gregor> that you could withdraw all of your original proposals, gregor> because we now have 3 clear proposals, worded by the gregor> respective proponents, for the 3 general directions: gregor> Dmitry's pro multiple init systems variant, Ian's compromise gregor> proposal, and now tbm's clear pro systemd text. Proposal B is not a compromise proposal in the same direction as Ian's. Proposal B is a lot closer to proposal C/F than anything Ian would support. Proposal B is targeted at a different kind of compromise. One that I heard under the subtext of people I was talking to who were not involved enough that they were going to write their own text. People who are skeptical of systemd, but who believe it is superior to the other existing init systems. The big difference between proposal B and F/C is that proposal B obligates gatekeepers like the release team to think about the issues involved in integrating technologies that might provide alternatives to systemd. It says that as a project we'll work with people to run experiments at a global level, but does not commit individual maintainers to support these experiments. Under proposals C/F, the project level gatekeepers probably wouldn't cooperate with such experiments. Under all three systemd options (B/C/F), individual packages are not obligated to support alternate init systems.
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Hello Martin, and seconders of proposal F, On Fri 29 Nov 2019 at 10:16PM +02, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > cross-distribution cooperation I would be grateful for an informal summary of why proposal F is thought to be needed on the ballot in addition to proposal C. What is thought not captured well by Sam's text, but is thought to be captured well by Martin's text? I don't mean to challenge the idea that proposal F is needed in addition to proposal C. I am just hoping to better understand the motivations behind proposal F than what I've been able to glean by putting the texts of proposals C and F side-by-side. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal > C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out > if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a > criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical > differences I am enclined to withdraw Proposal C. Without having thought this through, I have a gut feeling that you could withdraw all of your original proposals, because we now have 3 clear proposals, worded by the respective proponents, for the 3 general directions: Dmitry's pro multiple init systems variant, Ian's compromise proposal, and now tbm's clear pro systemd text. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Beatles signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. seconded & thanks. And I'd also like to say that I'd like Debian to stay the harbour for us all. Debian can be bend & expanded in many ways, especially technically. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On 11/29/2019 9:16 PM, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. Seconded. Thank you for putting this onto the ballot. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Hi. I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical differences I am enclined to withdraw Proposal C. Differences I notice: * The preamble is shorter. I think it has the same effect though. If the intente of Proposal F is to limit our ability to change things if we reach a consensus more than proposal C, I'd like to see this more explicitly spelled out. However, my current assumption is that as a statement under 4.1(5) it would be reasonable for project consensus should it diverge from this GR to guide the project without repealing the GR. * The text about working with downstreams is different. Unless explicitly directed otherwise by the project I at least plan to continue to work with downstreams and help them figure out where their efforts can be contributed and where they cannot. So, I don't see this as a change. * The language about using systemd facilities is even stronger than that in proposal C. Are there any other changes that actually effect what maintainers could or could not do between proposal C and F?
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation Seconded. -- Jordi Mallach signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > > cross-distribution cooperation > > Seconded. The message was nog signed. Kurt
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > > cross-distribution cooperation > > Seconded. Let me sign this before Kurt responds. -- Luca Filipozzi signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation So I counted enough seconds and it's on the website now. Kurt
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
> I'd like submit the following proposal: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation Seconded. -- intrigeri signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > cross-distribution cooperation Seconded. -- Luca Filipozzi
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:01:38PM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Seconded That wasn't signed. Kurt
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
I second the below amendment. Martin Michlmayr writes: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. Seconded, thanks. Ana signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Seconded On Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 3:54 PM Julien Cristau wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > cross-distribution cooperation > > > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > > Debian constitution: > > > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > > with time. > > > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > > costs. > > > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. > > > Seconded. > > Cheers, > Julien >
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Am 29.11.19 um 21:16 schrieb Martin Michlmayr: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. > > --- > > Thanks to Enrico Zini, Michael Biebl and others for help with > drafting this proposal. > Thank you for putting this together! Seconded by me as well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation Seconded. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Martin Michlmayr writes: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. Seconded. Ansgar signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. > Seconded. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
Am 29.11.19 um 21:16 schrieb Martin Michlmayr: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. > Thank you Martin. Seconded. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Proposal: Focus on systemd
I'd like submit the following proposal: Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution cooperation This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the Debian constitution: Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase with time. Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the costs. Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. --- Thanks to Enrico Zini, Michael Biebl and others for help with drafting this proposal. -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
