On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 19:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Sysvinit has worked for over 20 years. Yes, it has warts, but the warts > > > I therefore disagree in the strongest terms to make this be about the > > position of sysvinit, except in so far as it is part of an abstract > > group of "not systemd" options that we are trying to decide upon. > > I don't understand what point you're trying to make. My point was that > what actual conflict there is, is in practice conflict between those > who want to stay with sysvinit, and those who want to use systemd; and > therefore the most practically important part of a resolution is how it > would apply to sysvinit support. Your message first contains a defense > of sysvinit, then a claim that "therefore" it should not be considered > to be about sysvinit. I don't see how that "therefore" would logically > follow.
I grant you that I could have quoted better. Allow me to try to do that now. You wrote, in a message upthread, the following: > [...] I disagree: it's perfectly reasonable to consider sysv init > scripts obsolete, and consider "try to keep sysvinit at 2014 levels > indefinitely" activity a dead end. > > Note that I'm not saying that people shouldn't develop alternatives to > systemd. But to be taken seriously, they'd need to display some real > progress beyond sysvinit (and Upstart). Just "this allows to boot > without systemd" is not a worthwhile "alternative". This to me framed the rest of what you wrote, also in later messages. I should have replied to the above message rather than the later one, but I guess I was not careful enough. Sorry about that. Anyway, my point is that even if you think that sysvinit is now no longer a valid option, that is an opinion that reasonable people could disagree with. For those who think that sysvinit is good enough, and that the problems for which systemd provides a solution are not problems to begin with, there is nothing wrong with the premise of "try to keep sysvinit at 2014 levels indefinitely", on the contrary. So, while it's a valid question for Debian to decide whether to continue to support alternative solutions to systemd, I don't think it's reasonable for someone who is not involved with any of the alternatives to decide whether one of the available options is valuable to begin with. As such, I don't think, and vehemently disagree with your stated proposal, that we should decide anything on sysvinit in particular, other than through the more general question of "should Debian support anything that is not systemd". Thanks, -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard