Hi,
(Sorry if I am duplicating a point that was already made.
These threads are huge, and don't fit entirely into my memory.)
Ian Jackson wrote (30 Dec 2013 18:58:37 GMT) :
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion"):
>> Rather, we're talking about whether or not to swap out a core component of
>> an existing integrated ecosystem with a component that we like better.
> Unless you are proposing to make systemd mandatory for all Debian
> installations, this is work that needs to be done anyway.
"Needs to be done anyway", possibly, but I find it important to make
it clear that, depending on what decision is made, it affects the
project as a whole, and many of its members, in very different ways:
* In one case (upstart is chosen as the default init system), we, as
a project, are committed to do this work, at the very least because
Policy mandates it, and we want to release without too many
RC-buggy packages.
Some maintainers happily do it because they are glad that upstart
was picked, some do it reluctantly as they would have preferred
systemd and they feel this all is unnecessary work put on our
collective shoulders, some would have preferred systemd but console
themselves because it feels so good to move away from sysvinit
eventually, etc.
Regardless of what our personal preference is, we have to do this
work, because else it's a RC bug and we can't release.
* In the other case (systemd is chosen as the default init system),
any individual or self-organized team may tackle this work, if their
desires or needs make them feel committed to provide choice and
flexibility, for the init component and potentially the kernel too,
to Debian users.
I believe this effort is similar in many ways to porting, and as
such I trust it will be treated with "deference and reasonable
accommodation" (thanks, Russ) in our community.
The difference lies in who are the people who "need" to do this work
"anyway", and who else may instead dedicate their time to other tasks,
lead by their own desires and needs.
[Now moving away from my clarification point, and largely off-topic.
Feel free to ignore.]
This specific part of the broader init system discussion boils down to
"what are our collective goals and priorities?", or "what do we find
important enough to put much energy into?". We are currently not that
good at finding exciting collective answers to this, and even at
finding good ways to make such decisions.
I mean: if it were just me, my proposal would be "let's make Debian
better empower its users to protect their privacy in the post-Snowden
world", and to me it feels way more exciting and relevant a thing we
could do for our users and Free Software than "let's allow Debian
users to replace systemd's init component with something else".
How far off-topic my answer is shows, I believe, how hard it is to
focus on the mere technical decision that presently needs to be made
(and rightfully was sent to the TC), given how broad its non-technical
implications could be not only on the Debian project, Debian users,
Debian derivatives and Free Software, but on the world at large.
End of the digression explaining how hard it is not to digress.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
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/85fvpa3px2....@boum.org
