Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Tollef Fog Heen claimed in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746578#134 > that there is consensus on debian-devel in favour of the switch.
That was some time ago, and Martin has expressed a different opinion. I think the systemd team should have a chance to talk this over internally and see if they still feel that this is the right choice for Debian. (I know that we're on a bit of a schedule here due to the freeze.) > In earlier messages you have framed some of these bugs as requests to > overrule particular maintainers, whose packages had dependencies which > were causing this switch. > I think the principle, of whether this switch should be made > automatic, ought to be addressed separately, and should be regarded as > a question of overlapping jurisdictions. We can't have different > maintainers fighting over init on users' systems by publishing > packages with dependencies which result in their preferred setup. The primary question that's obviously a maintainer override is the order of dependencies in libpam-systemd, and I still think we can reach a consensus there without the TC needing to rule on something. > I think we should therefore issue a set of general guidance along the > lines of the draft I just posted. I believe it would be a mistake to start doing that without giving the systemd maintainers a chance to discuss Martin's message and the overall issue, and to decide if there's actually a conflict here. > Your objection that you feel we hadn't decided at the time could be > addressed by altering para 3 of my draft to read: > 3. The TC does not feel that our decision should extend to switching > existing Debian GNU/Linux installations from sysvinit to systemd. > Nor do we think that those users should be prompted to switch init > system. If you're proposing this as a resolution of #765803, that's fine. I haven't decided if that's something I'd agree with yet or not. However, I was under the impression that you were proposing that we issue a resolution, independent of #765803, that clarifies our February decision. I was trying to say that I think that might be a reasonable course of action, but it would need to just say that our February decision didn't express an opinion about upgrades. That's how I understood it, at least; the other members of the TC can obviously weigh in if they disagree. In *that* context, paragraph 3 (and 4) of your proposal are obviously out of place and shouldn't be included. It may be that I just misunderstood the context of your proposal, given that, now that I re-read it, it sounds like you were aiming for a resolution of #765803 all along. In which case I'm just confused, and what I'm arguing about isn't even what you were intending. :) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org