Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:06:45AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated) /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years. Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the rc package is why you saw this immediately! :) Though that's annoying, because upstream must extensively uses rc. All OpenRC commands are in fact using /sbin/rc. For example, /bin/rc-status (which shows what is a symlink to /bin/rc, and then /sbin/rc finds out that it has been called by using /bin/rc-status, so it prints the status. Is there much chance of convincing upstream to consider a migration to another binary name, perhaps openrc? If it's a difficult and complex change it would be best if it was performed upstream I think. Although it took Debian to notice the clash, the clash may be a problem for others as well. FWIW /usr/bin/rc is an interesting shell and worth a look for those who aren't already familiar with it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2013075554.gb19...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2013-10-25 17:04, Bastien beudart wrote: It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Correct. And five other members. Isn't that biased? Probably. But even if the two people vote in one direction they can still be overthrown. And if systemd is the choice to go with I have a hard time seeing Steve and Colin turning over five other people. Even more so given the technical know how and merit that resides in these five. If I would doubt in Colin and Steve (I don't) I still would believe that the other five would be there to save the day. I put my trust in the TC, all seven of them. - -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJScmLxAAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7w3EIALeP5i9KJWq1PFeqRc1Eso9i crap0pLOC46KK9OTQiRTL7CMtL+YOz96L24QB/94BHWY8DStJRTLxQC4Y2Vv6B4P ggWaPGT8lIUH1ONzTAW9Mmos58DQwp7BQvyYlfun05nbFlJ3ySeytHtEIUWvLdSV SKkCJzJdm8cGeWeUEdxc4kqMM9tzuB5DdGFrpQD49+5uQMu7yaSr71KN8Ycc6wlX dSioFNPyFkziU00UXy+GSv7X5YDaCY4yLbItqeeQanMrJkCApIYObArZHGZd0kwO uVXKYhZ/yNSdraCPRv6gbmZYLdryzicU/cV8QgiD8h6ueSr38b2PxrLYquIRuBI= =2fpS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/527262f1.4050...@bsnet.se
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least others can try it. As much as I can tell, it works, though I'm sure there's a lot of problems that I didn't see, and having it exposed would help (so that others can fill bug reports). Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html I would like to try to build it also for GNU/Hurd, save the PATH_MAX stuff. Where is it? It is not in http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1383033433.9990.5.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Hi Svante, On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote: Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we might get OpenRC working on our ports, but some still insist on there being *only* systemd (and no ports). *sigh* I'm so glad for the existence of the ports right now. Or Debian might already have made this jump with eyes closed, into some vendor lock-in type of situation. I would like to try to build it also for GNU/Hurd, save the PATH_MAX stuff. Where is it? It is not in http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Packages in the NEW queue are not available to download from anywhere AFAIK. But you can clone the packaging repo from: http://anonscm.debian.org/git/git/collab-maint/openrc.git Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526f9392.1010...@pyro.eu.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/29/2013 06:53 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi Svante, On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +0100 Svante Signell wrote: Triggered by the good news about OpenRC for GNU/kFreeBSD http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00991.html I wouldn't get too excited just yet; with more work we might get OpenRC working on our ports, but some still insist on there being *only* systemd (and no ports). *sigh* Nobody can stop anyone to work on what he wishes in Debian. This has always been the case. If I am having fun to work on OpenRC, and wish to have it work on the ports, that's my choice, and my choice only. I don't think it can go as far as blocking OpenRC from being uploaded, even if it's just experimental (experimental is there for that). The only annoying bit would be if we decide that sysv-rc scripts (and OpenRC runscripts) don't have to be mandatory, and that a bunch of #@(*$ refuse to apply patches for supporting the ports sent to the BTS. Then only, you have a problem. Though I really can't believe this will happen and that we have such extremism within Debian. Let's assume good faith! :) Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52700489.2000...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
* Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, 2013-10-25, 23:45: OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least others can try it. IANA ftp-master, but here's my quick review: Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated) /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years. What is the rationale for the binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath override? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131028102822.ga7...@jwilk.net
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Stefano Zacchiroli zack at debian.org writes: *technical* decision is stupid. We really need to stop thinking that every single member of the Debian project, just because he/she is a DD, has a clue on every single technical matter that go on in the project. This means that you just don’t vote if you don’t know about it, it doesn’t mean that polling among these who know is bad. And note that proving you have a clue on something in Debian is pretty easy: just work actively on that matter, being the maintainer of related packages, or having a verifiable flow of working patches against them, etc. In this specific case, what’s “related packages”? For example, if I want to insist that sysvinit keeps being supported, but the GNOME people still hard-depend on systemd, and neither side would possibly let me “in”… this “just work on it” is, in reality, not possible. (Also, I have no interest in working on either GNOME or systemd, I just want them to not intrude on “my soil” and don’t want to intrude on theirs, unless – which they (they seem to blend together, anyway) currently do – they tread on mine.) Things like this are *not* technical issues that can easily be solved by submitting patches. The decisions about the init system (both which are the supported ones? and which is the default one?) clearly belong to the tech-ctte at this point. Not as badly worded as currently. But I assume CTTE would collect arguments, possibly from this thread. That’s why I’ve agreed to wait, even though several others would support the GR right now. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20131028t182608-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/28/2013 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, 2013-10-25, 23:45: OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least others can try it. IANA ftp-master, but here's my quick review: Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated) /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years. Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the rc package is why you saw this immediately! :) Though that's annoying, because upstream must extensively uses rc. All OpenRC commands are in fact using /sbin/rc. For example, /bin/rc-status (which shows what is a symlink to /bin/rc, and then /sbin/rc finds out that it has been called by using /bin/rc-status, so it prints the status. I'm not sure how hard it will be to fix, though I don't expect it's going to be just-a-simple-rename... :( What is the rationale for the binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath override? Probably OpenRC doesn't work if that isn't done, because it is loaded very early in the boot process (I'm really not so sure about this one, it would need more investigation, and I always delayed that one...). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526ea7b5.3060...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
IANA ftp-master, but here's my quick review: Please rename /sbin/rc to something else. We've had (unrelated) /usr/bin/rc in Debian for at least 18 years. Outch! This bites hard. Maybe you being the maintainer of the rc package is why you saw this immediately! :) Though that's annoying, because upstream must extensively uses rc. All OpenRC commands are in fact using /sbin/rc. For example, /bin/rc-status (which shows what is a symlink to /bin/rc, and then /sbin/rc finds out that it has been called by using /bin/rc-status, so it prints the status. I'm not sure how hard it will be to fix, though I don't expect it's going to be just-a-simple-rename... :( Could this problem be explained. As long as they are in separate directories and called explicitly does that matter? Is it because on BSD, binaries in /sbin would be found if just rc rather than /usr/bin/rc was used? -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/350320.75803...@smtp102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:01:05PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Could this problem be explained. As long as they are in separate directories and called explicitly does that matter? Please see the nodejs vs node thread(s). Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros of cons such as on LWN.net comments or any distro mailing list as many are tired of systemd discussion and this wide ranging and much of the stolen/borrowed/existing functionality is what many don't want mandated on all systems by default for various reasons. I only saw that in the beginning. As soon as people had systemd as their init system, all those discussions died. I see loads of really pro statements. Could you point me to these comments? From what I have seen, most people on LWN.net are *very* pro-systemd. I mean, so much pro that it is getting a bit strange. What you said I have not seen *at all*. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131027191906.gc18...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Funny thing, the people who are undermining the Debian processes most loudly are not even Debian Developers and thus they are not bound by them. I am tired of this recurring flamewar, please stop it and let the tech-ctte do their job. This is not a democracy any more, but the loudiestcracy. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server On 26. 10. 2013, at 0:10, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote: On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue, but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they will keep supporting Upstart and believe in it. This is a fairly visible company choice. Your work environment has at least at some level an official policy that Upstart should be considered better than systemd. Ubuntu still wants to keep using Upstart, but if Debian chooses systemd, Ubuntu will likely also need to admit that Upstart failed and plan for a switch. If your vote decides that Debian will choose systemd, and as a result upstreams conclusively drop any support for Upstart while Ubuntu still wants to keep using it, do you believe this will not have any negative consequences for your career at Canonical? I consider this the biggest question about the conflict of interest, more than direct you must vote this way pressure from your employer. I would see it the same way... it's not only a question whether objective ruling would be made, but also whether it could bring our tech-ctte members into troubles when they decide (i.e. against upstream). And another issue: If e.g. tech-ctte (with some Canonical employees in it) now decides in favour of upstart... then we'll see forever people who challenge the neutrality and objectiveness of such decision. The best would probably be, if people who are either - directly involved in the development of any of the discussed init-systems (in the sense of playing a bigger part) - who work for a company which is pushing the respective system (RedHat, Canonical) or - who maintain the respective package in Debian should abstain from the decision, but just provide their technical input and arguments. Cheers, Chris.
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Let’s GR it. No. I think I've already argued in the past against this idea on -devel, possibly even in reply to you, Thorsten. As I can't find my post back then, let me reiterate. GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for *technical* decision is stupid. We really need to stop thinking that every single member of the Debian project, just because he/she is a DD, has a clue on every single technical matter that go on in the project. And note that proving you have a clue on something in Debian is pretty easy: just work actively on that matter, being the maintainer of related packages, or having a verifiable flow of working patches against them, etc. [*] in a broad sense, not related to the document called Debian Policy On one hand, the belief that every DD is technically omniscient is the reason why we still have so many pointlessly heated debates on this mailing list. We would have way less of those if we let only people who have a clue debate specific matters. Unfortunately, many of us seem to be too arrogant to realize they, in fact, don't have a clue. On the other hand, if we stop believing that every single DD is technically omniscient, we would realize how foolish is to use GRs to vote on technical matters. Doing so results in taking important technical decisions essentially randomly. Based on popularity of the various options, trends, vocality of the supporting groups, etc. That's not what Debian is or should be about. Note that the *possibility* of taking technical decisions by GRs is important, as it provides a balance of powers within the project, but we should always do everything in our power to avoid doing that. The decisions about the init system (both which are the supported ones? and which is the default one?) clearly belong to the tech-ctte at this point. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
* Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi [2013-10-25 18:27]: Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to have public trust. Care to back your accusation. If you don't like his backed arguements, come up with something better but declaring them dishonest FUD against systemd because you favor systemd and he does not is plain wrong imo. Yours Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026084646.gy15...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Zack wrote: Note that the *possibility* of taking technical decisions by GRs is important, as it provides a balance of powers within the project, but we should always do everything in our power to avoid doing that. The decisions about the init system (both which are the supported ones? and which is the default one?) clearly belong to the tech-ctte at this point. Agreed 100%. Let's see what they have to say. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1va1ll-0003ty...@mail.einval.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: On one hand, the belief that every DD is technically omniscient is the reason why we still have so many pointlessly heated debates on this mailing list. We would have way less of those if we let only people who have a clue debate specific matters. Unfortunately, many of us seem to be too arrogant to realize they, in fact, don't have a clue. On the other hand, if we stop believing that every single DD is technically omniscient, we would realize how foolish is to use GRs to vote on technical matters. Doing so results in taking important technical decisions essentially randomly. Based on popularity of the various options, trends, vocality of the supporting groups, etc. That's not what Debian is or should be about. I've been trying very hard to not get involved in this, but I feel the need to poke my head up to give this a very strong +1. For the same reason the chances of me uploading the kernel approach zero, there's no reason I need to vote on the init system. In fact, by the tone of the discussions we've had on the topic I have very little confidence in a GR leading to a decision being made on technical merits. It's time to let the tech-ctte do their constitutionally mandated job. Thanks, -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAL6k_AwEaeCzAKTtmjHCYXAJoOTYNXLoWrEAZB7Y1_==bxq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:09:45PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to have public trust. Steve *has* public trust. There are very few people around here that contributed to Debian more than he did. If you don't feel he has public trust, then you know nothing about Debian, and you are for sure not in a position to criticize the decisions he may take as technical committee member. Ditto for Colin and the other members of the board, that are there for a reason. In case you don't know, that reason is not being champions of trolling on -devel. Who are you? Who pays your bills? -- Enrico Tassi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026153000.GA10501@birba.invalid
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for *technical* decision is stupid. Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs. systemd is *only* a technical question? - Apparently both are much more capable than sysvinit - Apparently you can do most things of a modern init system with both Sure there are many detailed questions like e.g. systemd doing some (IMHO useless integrity protection on logs, which AFAIK upstrart hasn't anything similar)... but that's IMHO rather a matter of taste. IMHO there is quite some big political point in the whole question, namely which of the both fractions one wants to support. - Canonical/*buntu - RedHat and (what seems to be) the rest of the world It's also a question wheter Debian will at least politically be tied even more to Canonical/*buntu - and I guess no one can claim that there wouldn't be sucht ties (already by having many Canonical workers being DDs,too)[0]. I wouldn't see many technical arguments that speak strongly really in favour of one or the other, perhaps: - Against systemd speaks that it's uncertain on whether there will be a solution in the end for the non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons. Admittedly I have no idea how the situation is there wrt upstart. - For systemd speaks, that it seems most of the rest of the world is focusing on it (many kernel developers, the wayland guys, etc.). Does upstart receive the same attention here? Could that mean much effort or even problems for Debian in the end, if it decides for upstream? Cheers, Chris. [0] And note that I neither said these ties would be good nor bad. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:37:55PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: [...] non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons. Uh-oh. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Hi, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes: On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for *technical* decision is stupid. Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs. systemd is *only* a technical question? - Apparently both are much more capable than sysvinit - Apparently you can do most things of a modern init system with both Sure there are many detailed questions like e.g. systemd doing some (IMHO useless integrity protection on logs, which AFAIK upstrart hasn't anything similar)... but that's IMHO rather a matter of taste. systemd doing more is quite relevant for this decision as far as I understand the discussion: unlike upstart, systemd is not just an init replacement, but offers additional services like journald or logind. These provide useful functionality and parts of them would be needed even when using upstart (logind was mentioned). So deciding for upstart means providing these services via some other means, such as writing a replacement, forking an old version of systemd's logind, or convincing systemd upstream to provide a logind that works together with upstart. I am not sure how much work this will be, esp. should additional modules be required later. Also the tight integration into systemd allows to provide some really nice features. From trying out systemd for a bit, I found systemctl status quite impressive. I don't know if upstart has something comparable. For just the init part, I'm not sure how large the differences between the systems are. Systemd seems to provide more features, upstart tries to be small and simple. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ppqs10dr@eisei.43-1.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013, at 16:37, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for *technical* decision is stupid. Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs. systemd is *only* a technical question? Several Debian Developers has voiced that this is the technical question. Could you please stop commenting and suggesting how we should run Debian project? I think we can handle well even without your contributions. It would be much appreciated if we can stop this useless thread now. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382804321.26653.38912417.5718b...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to have public trust. Please be specific if you ever use the word FUD again as I have it used against myself when the details of what I have stated have simply not been understood or omitted through weariness and it is perfectly possible that varying user requirements simply lead to opposing positions, which is normally a huge and unparalleled strength of UNIX in catering to both when it's tried and tested principles are adhered to. For the record when reading this it occured to me that Steve was being far more reasonable and meritable than you. perhaps the words 'FUD' and 'modern' should be banned as non technical arguments on this list. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/823544.95358...@smtp135.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
I recommend one more option, nicknamed rotten tomatoes, that basically says that this GR should never have been proposed. And even more so not listened to for a few reasons. Little has changed since the last discussion that I feel came to a reasonable current standing with an overview possibly from Thorsten. Allowing unforgivable and inconsiderate possibly purposeful upstream decisions to improve the chances of migration with potential future black mailing fall out to come from the non-negotiable systemd camp can only encourage dispicable behaviour and send the wrong message and one that is far more important not to send than not sending Gnome dropped because of systemd message which would actually have some justification. I feel a consensus to never talk about systemd migration when systemd or dependencies cause problems should be made and to do so only when a high level decision is made that it is the right time to decide whether to switch or stay with the current init has been made and on a general what init system is best process rather than thread change. If anyone deviates simply tell them that any general discussion not relating to a particular problem is off agenda currently. I wish not to get involved but worry about what will happen if I don't and so would be glad if all can agree to simply replying to any attempts for the time being with something like. '/SBIN/INIT MIGRATION OR NOT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED AND NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION CURRENTLY' -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/298796.95358...@smtp135.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
systemd doing more is quite relevant for this decision as far as I understand the discussion: unlike upstart, systemd is not just an init replacement, but offers additional services like journald or logind. I don't mean to be rude but please read up on systemd and see the pros of cons such as on LWN.net comments or any distro mailing list as many are tired of systemd discussion and this wide ranging and much of the stolen/borrowed/existing functionality is what many don't want mandated on all systems by default for various reasons. You can have it if you want it through installation you shouldn't have to have it in memory etc. and optionally not use it. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/293633.76504...@smtp132.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/26/2013 10:37 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: - Against systemd speaks that it's uncertain on whether there will be a solution in the end for the non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons. Admittedly I have no idea how the situation is there wrt upstart. If neither Upstart or Systemd works for these non-Linux ports, then there's OpenRC. Which is why I worked on it (and I did this, mainly because of ethical and philosophical reasons as you put it). It wouldn't hurt to have more help on it... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526c1027.3070...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Oct 26, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: If neither Upstart or Systemd works for these non-Linux ports, then there's OpenRC. Which is why I worked on it (and I did this, mainly because of ethical and philosophical reasons as you put it). It wouldn't hurt to have more help on it... Having all packages implement the configuration for a second init system just to support a few hundreds of users is not really a reasonable solution. Not just for the time wasted, but also because nobody would test this. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 25/10/13 16:28, Russ Allbery wrote: Fully supporting an init system means, among other things, writing or generating native configuration files for that init system so that we can take full (or at least fuller) advantage of its capabilities. We're currently not doing that for anything other than sysvinit. For what it's worth, quite a few packages already ship native systemd and/or Upstart jobs alongside their sysvinit scripts, which are used in preference to the sysvinit scripts: # systemd units on my laptop that are generated internally by systemd # when it reads a sysvinit script (or LSB init script as it # calls them) % systemctl list-units | grep LSB | wc -l 36 # systemd units on my laptop that are really systemd units, # only counting .service files (its closest equivalent of init # scripts) and not counting systemd's equivalents of the initscripts # package, or daemons from src:systemd % systemctl list-units | grep -v 'LSB\|systemd-' | grep '\.service' | wc -l 28 # Upstart jobs on my laptop % ls /etc/init/ | wc -l 17 I keep meaning to write native systemd units for my pkg-games packages, but they're still in the LSB category at the moment. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526c3be5.9020...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:02:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: # systemd units on my laptop that are generated internally by systemd # when it reads a sysvinit script (or LSB init script as it # calls them) % systemctl list-units | grep LSB | wc -l That's only currently loaded units, i.e. probably the ones which are/were running, without --all. # systemd units on my laptop that are really systemd units, # only counting .service files (its closest equivalent of init # scripts) and not counting systemd's equivalents of the initscripts # package, or daemons from src:systemd % systemctl list-units | grep -v 'LSB\|systemd-' | grep '\.service' | wc -l 28 Also it's better to say systemctl list-units -t service --no-legend --all then grep by type. Yours nitpicky, Zbyszek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026233712.gm28...@in.waw.pl
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Christoph Anton Mitterer calestyo at scientia.net writes: Let’s GR it. Let's tech committee it :) Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:19, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: Let’s GR it. Let's tech committee it :) I was just going to say the same. I don't think we need a full GR, let's just shove it to tech-ctte, so they can make an informed decision. We have the Tech CTTE for this type of decisions after all. And I fully agree with Marco d'Itri that we need one system. Although I prefer systemd I don't really care strongly about that as long as it's not sysvinit. I am tired of writing hundred+ lines of shell script for stuff I can express in 15 lines: $ grep -Ev ^(#|$) nsd.init.d | wc -l 118 $ grep -Ev ^(#|$) nsd.service | wc -l 15 $ grep -Ev ^(#|$) nsd.upstart | wc -l 14 O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382711187.32704.38466593.7cc29...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Let’s GR it. Let's tech committee it :) I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd, or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones (plus maybe OpenRC which had a GSoC after all), then which one. That’s something for the Developers to decide IMHO. And we should do this now. Still relatively early in the release process, so that any action can be done by jessie+1 at the latest, with jessie already carrying everything needed to enable it. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20131025t162545-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:03:38 + (UTC) Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Christoph Anton Mitterer calestyo at scientia.net writes: Let the war begin... ;) I’m looking for someone to help me formulate a GR (since I know I’m not good in formulating things that don’t offend anyone, and in English) that states that Debian will support several init systems (sysvinit with sysv-rc, with file-rc, possibly OpenRC, systemd, upstart) and offer the choice which to use to all of its users. Let’s GR it. This flamewarring on the mailing list is getting ridiculous, and it’s clear that this becomes a root of issues that spread into other issues (like the desktop environment) that need a decision. Possible alternative choices for the GR would be: - switch to systemd, do not permit any other init system - switch to upstart, do not permit any other init system - switch to systemd/upstart for $subset_of_architectures, permit architectures to not support the full set of init systems including lowering the number of supported ones down to one ... only if the unsupported init systems use features not available on the architecture. This would effectively become a linux | !linux question and all architectures supporting the same kernel would be expected to have the same init support? If so, the selection is purely down to the architecture list of the init package concerned. Let's not make room for individual porter teams to have the burden of the decision about which of the working init systems they chose for their arch and re-igniting this flame war in a subset of architectures at some point in the future. If we're going to offer multi-support in the GR, then the same rules should apply as do to the rest of the packages - if the arch can support it, the arch cannot unilaterally break it or ignore it, neither can the package choose to ignore bugs or fixes related to that arch. So that option becomes: - adopt both systemd and upstart for all architectures for which the package can be supported, implement support for migrating between init systems and require that each init system supports migration in each direction. As with all GR's there always has to be: - Further discussion Not sure whether to add: - no change, do not support either systemd or upstart. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Let’s GR it. Let's tech committee it :) I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd, or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support one or multiple init systems Debian constitution, section 6.1, subpoint 2: Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. Which is, by definition what is going on with init systems, as I read it. I think this is more fit for them than a GR. Plus, if they decide for systemd, you can still suggest your GR to override them. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 16:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Let’s GR it. Let's tech committee it :) I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd, or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones (plus maybe OpenRC which had a GSoC after all), then which one. That’s something for the Developers to decide IMHO. And we should do this now. Still relatively early in the release process, so that any action can be done by jessie+1 at the latest, with jessie already carrying everything needed to enable it. Do we? I on the other hand have a full trust in the technical committee and as a packager of several daemons just want to have the situation stabilized. I don't have a urge to vote on the decision and I think that focused informed technical decision would be more valuable than general consensus where we let our emotions vote. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382711634.2721.38470185.695b0...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so that we can move on). Also, I’d not like to “maybe have a GR later”. Let’s have one now, then move forward, whatever the outcome is. Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20131025t170115-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:04:47PM +0200, Bastien beudart wrote: Let's tech committee it :) It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Uh, if you don't trust the Debian tech committee to make good judgement calls for Debian, we've got bigger problems. This is seriously disturbing to read. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so that we can move on). No, it's which package will provide the init. It's grounds for the tech committee. Also, I’d not like to “maybe have a GR later”. Let’s have one now, then move forward, whatever the outcome is. I'd much prefer the committee to make a decision than a GR. Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… No. We just support sysvinit as a project. The rest are supported by a subset of developers. so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. s/continue/start/ -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
2013/10/25 Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. This is more or less a political question (and one of trust and one to FINALLY decide what package maintainers and porters can depend on, so that we can move on). No, it is a technical question and a question of what Debian should maintain. Also, I’d not like to “maybe have a GR later”. Let’s have one now, then move forward, whatever the outcome is. Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain. Switching init-systems is nothing anyone would want to do, except for maybe supporting sysvinit on kFreebsd, while supporting systemd on Linux - but these are different OSes, and different usecases. Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny8Ados9hiML4Rhgx4kfy_SpTcFZ_OGqeat4K+=v+bn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Let's tech committee it :) It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Cheers, Paul
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. I think you need to put quotes around support in that sentence. :) file-rc breaks with some regularity and is only used by a tiny number of people (so probably has more lurking problems). systemd and upstart are currently only supported in compatibility mode where they're effectively degrading to a fancy version of sysvinit for nearly everything they're doing. Fully supporting an init system means, among other things, writing or generating native configuration files for that init system so that we can take full (or at least fuller) advantage of its capabilities. We're currently not doing that for anything other than sysvinit. I still think it would be nice to try supporting both upstart and systemd in the short term and see which one works out better for Debian's needs, and which gets the most developer support, since I think we still have a lack of data. But, in the long run, I think Debian would be much better served by picking one and, as Matthias so aptly put it, making it awesome. -- 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: http://lists.debian.org/87ppqt9xox@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes: It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Steve and Colin have both been Debian developers for a lot longer than they've been Ubuntu developers. I would indeed be surprised to see Steve vote against upstart, but that would be on the basis of its technical merits as he sees them and as he's made clear in various discussions over the years. I think there will be a variety of opinions on the Technical Committee about this, and I have no idea what the final voting would be. -- 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: http://lists.debian.org/87li1h9xk5@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of Hurd kFreeBSD). On 10/25/2013 10:27 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones (plus maybe OpenRC which had a GSoC after all) OpenRC has been waiting in the NEW queue (targeting experimental, as this is what it is right now: experimental!) for more than a month. It'd be nice if someone from the FTP master team could review it, so that at least others can try it. As much as I can tell, it works, though I'm sure there's a lot of problems that I didn't see, and having it exposed would help (so that others can fill bug reports). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526a9201.9070...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes: Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of Hurd kFreeBSD). Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick will need to be ported to Hurd and kFreeBSD (in some fashion, possibly with functionality restrictions) or we'll drop support for those architectures. I'm not saying that's necessarily the correct decision, but I also don't think it makes sense to proactively take it off the table. We've had lots of discussions about this in the past, and it's clear there is not general agreement on the relative priorities of supporting non-Linux kernels versus adopting new and better (but non-portable) technology for Linux kernels. There are a lot of strong opinions, but not agreement. I think it's worth noting that, historically, the Hurd port has never required us to hold back the Linux architectures. Rather, the Hurd porters have worked hard on adding functionality to Hurd to support the software in the archive by implementing Linux interfaces, and at turning the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort, and I don't think we should assume systemd or upstart could not be handled the same way that many other things have been handled in the past. (Also, while I'm not personally familiar with the issues involved and may be missing some subtlety, at first glance it seems like an event-driven init system would actually be a more natural fit for the Hurd's microkernel model than the ordered startup forced by sysvinit. Conceptual fits of course don't imply that the porting would be easy.) -- 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: http://lists.debian.org/87hac59w45@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Russ Allbery wrote: Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes: It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Steve and Colin have both been Debian developers for a lot longer than they've been Ubuntu developers. I would indeed be surprised to see Steve vote against upstart, but that would be on the basis of its technical merits as he sees them and as he's made clear in various discussions over the years. Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to have public trust. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382717385.1856.82.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Matthias Klumpp dixit: We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain. I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are “one size fits all”, nor do they intend to. bye, //mirabilos -- diogenese Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it. igli yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1310251641410.14...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 10/25/2013 11:02 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think *anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this Erm, we already support sysv-rc, file-rc, systemd, upstart… so my favourite GR outcome would just say that Debian fully commits to continue doing that. Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of Hurd kFreeBSD). popcon.debian.org has some data about the usage of said architectures/kernels: amd64: 92600 i386: 63099 hurd-i386: 25 kfreebsd-amd64: 68 kfreebsd-i386: 53 Holding up development of our Linux architecture for the 0.1% isn't serving the majority of Debian's users well. I know popcon isn't perfect, but its margin of error is acceptable for talking about the gross disparity in number of users between Linux and Hurd/kFreeBSD. -mz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOLfK3V_E=+l6fy6k7qseze6n_faacwskse1q1lct8_hxc2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 18:09, Uoti Urpala wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes: It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Steve and Colin have both been Debian developers for a lot longer than they've been Ubuntu developers. I would indeed be surprised to see Steve vote against upstart, but that would be on the basis of its technical merits as he sees them and as he's made clear in various discussions over the years. Steve Langasek has been consistently posting dishonest FUD against systemd. Maybe you could explain that as excessive zeal following from valid technical considerations, but I'd consider that an excessively charitable interpretation for a member of a body that is supposed to have public trust. And I still trust him to either vote in the list with his best conscience or to step down if he feels that he is unable to put away his conflict of interest. If we don't trust tech-ctte and their best judgement we have a bigger problem than pity war about init system. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382720538.24019.38536525.06643...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes: Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of Hurd kFreeBSD). Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick will need to be ported to Hurd and kFreeBSD (in some fashion, possibly with functionality restrictions) I think it's worth noting that, historically, the Hurd port has never required us to hold back the Linux architectures. Rather, the Hurd porters have worked hard on adding functionality to Hurd to support the software in the archive by implementing Linux interfaces I've been very impressed by the hurd effort as well. and at turning the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort, and I don't think we should assume systemd or upstart could not be handled the same way that many other things have been handled in the past. Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have to fork the project (or maintain a separate branch, which would be as painful). Lennart has been (IMO sadly) very clear about this. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526ab38a.60...@debian.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Thomas Goirand dixit: and at turning the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort, Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have to fork the project (or maintain a separate branch, which would be as painful). Lennart has been (IMO sadly) very clear about this. Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything important on it? bye, //mirabilos -- Hi, does anyone sell openbsd stickers by themselves and not packaged with other products? No, the only way I've seen them sold is for $40 with a free OpenBSD CD. -- Haroon Khalid and Steve Shockley in gmane.os.openbsd.misc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1310251813030.14...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:14:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Isn’t that a reason to rather remove it, under the hostile upstream clause (cf. J�rg Schilling), or at the very least, not base anything important on it? Hostile upstream != GPL / CDDL incompatabilities. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Thorsten Glaser dijo [Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:44PM +]: Let's tech committee it :) I’d ask them to solve the situation of gnome/xfce depending on systemd, or something like that, but not a decision whether we want to support one or multiple init systems, and if not all currently existing ones (plus maybe OpenRC which had a GSoC after all), then which one. That’s something for the Developers to decide IMHO. And we should do this now. Still relatively early in the release process, so that any action can be done by jessie+1 at the latest, with jessie already carrying everything needed to enable it. Yes and no. Yes, all of us have an opinion — and valid, important reasons to hang to that opinion. No, because we have had already many flames on this topic, and I do not see it has helped move the current situation. A GR is out of the question, because GRs should only address non-technical issues — and this topic is a technical one. Now... A ruling by the tech committee will have to be followed by us all. And if the tech-ctte were to rule we are all moving to OpenRC, and I were a rabid OpenRC basher... Well, you cannot force a volunteer to do it, right? (yes, we can choose an init system by policy and make my packages insta-RC-buggy, but that's also far from ideal) But... Back to the topic: Given the recurrence of the topic, the difficulty to reach a decision and the breadth of its impact... Yes, I would support requesting tech-ctte for a ruling. Oh, and about the other subthread, about a bias inside the committee: I fully trust our committee members to discuss and decide based on the best outcome for Debian, regardless of who pays their RL job. All of them have proven to be the most committed people to our project over a very long timespan, and have earned their position through hard work and commitment. Yes, Russ mentions there might be a conflict of interest — Having the conflict explicitly stated were it to exist (it has to be acknowledged by the affected people), the members that feel so might decide not to get involved with the present discussion from within their role. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025192003.gb13...@gwolf.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:31:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bastien beudart bastienbeud...@gmail.com writes: It seems that the tech committee is composed of two well known ubuntu developers. Isn't that biased? I mean do you see them voting against upstart, I know that the decision should be based around technical facts, but that is not in their interest to vote against their project, especially since canonical is isolating itself from the rest of the community, so having Debian support is, I guess, really important, so… Steve and Colin have both been Debian developers for a lot longer than they've been Ubuntu developers. I would indeed be surprised to see Steve vote against upstart, but that would be on the basis of its technical merits as he sees them and as he's made clear in various discussions over the years. I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as we've all worked on a wide range of systems with considerations that relate to the varying designs of systemd and Upstart. Anticipating the kind of accusation that Bastien makes, I talked with Bdale at DebConf in his capacity as TC chair and asked whether he felt I should recuse myself; I don't remember exactly the words he used but I think it was something along the lines of TC members not needing to recuse themselves just because they happen to have relevant technical experience. My employer certainly has an interest in Upstart, that much is clear, and certainly I find it personally helpful when individual packages carry Upstart support in Debian because it means we don't have to go to the effort of maintaining deltas against them in Ubuntu. But I think if I have a pre-existing bias it is more towards not having a monoculture, because in cases where we have multiple competing systems with broadly similar capabilities (and e.g. the fact that we support glibc and not uclibc isn't really a good comparison, since the latter is explicitly targeting embedded rather than general-purpose systems), I think the competition is healthy for all of them and for Debian, even if it results in a bit more work. For similar reasons I think the breadth of architectures we support is a distinct strength of Debian, even if it involves more work, and it brings the concrete benefit that when we need to bring up a new one we have the flexibility designed into the system to be able to do so without much fuss. Of course we need a default, which I'd like not to be sysvinit, and I hope we can look at *that* as objectively as possible with a minimum of mud-slinging. One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that would be generally understood as ethical behaviour. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025202324.ga28...@riva.ucam.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
2013/10/25 Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org: [...] One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that would be generally understood as ethical behaviour. And *that* is the point :-) All members of the TC have contributed lots of useful stuff to Debian, and I trust everyone of them to has the knowledge to decide on something for Debian, finding the (technically) best solution. If some of the members do also contribute to Ubuntu is irrelevant, and there are also other members who aren't associated with Ubuntu. The only thing I would not accept would be if a company forced a TC member to manipulate a decision - I trust the individual TC members, but not necessarily their employers. But I don't see that risk here :-) Thank you so much, Colin, for bringing this (IMHO very important) point up! Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny_pJECoMFYo8RE+aHWQNP7pQ8-0ezM_k1A7=a6ylal...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:42:18PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: We support three init-systems badly. We should fully support one init-system and make it awesome and easy to use, and not having many half-baked solutions which are a pain to maintain. I disagree: neither upstart nor systemd are “one size fits all”, nor do they intend to. I'm not sure where you get that impression. Upstart and systemd both intend to be the only init system you'll ever need. Unfortunately, that's not a title that they can easily share. ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Colin Watson wrote: I've done some work on Upstart itself and a good deal more designing subsystems around it; no doubt that experience will have a bearing on my vote. The other Technical Committee members will also surely bring relevant experience of one kind or another to the table, as we've all worked on a wide range of systems with considerations that relate to the varying designs of systemd and Upstart. It unfortunately seems that nobody on the ctte is particularly familiar with systemd though (unless someone there has studied it in private), so a decision would need to be mainly based on evaluating the representations of others. Anticipating the kind of accusation that Bastien makes, I talked with Bdale at DebConf in his capacity as TC chair and asked whether he felt I should recuse myself; I don't remember exactly the words he used but I think it was something along the lines of TC members not needing to recuse themselves just because they happen to have relevant technical experience. One thing I will say here and now: if I feel under pressure from my employer to vote a particular way, then I will immediately recuse myself from the vote and from further part in the discussion. I'd hope that I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue, but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they will keep supporting Upstart and believe in it. This is a fairly visible company choice. Your work environment has at least at some level an official policy that Upstart should be considered better than systemd. Ubuntu still wants to keep using Upstart, but if Debian chooses systemd, Ubuntu will likely also need to admit that Upstart failed and plan for a switch. If your vote decides that Debian will choose systemd, and as a result upstreams conclusively drop any support for Upstart while Ubuntu still wants to keep using it, do you believe this will not have any negative consequences for your career at Canonical? I consider this the biggest question about the conflict of interest, more than direct you must vote this way pressure from your employer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382736975.1856.108.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:36 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue, but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they will keep supporting Upstart and believe in it. This is a fairly visible company choice. Your work environment has at least at some level an official policy that Upstart should be considered better than systemd. Ubuntu still wants to keep using Upstart, but if Debian chooses systemd, Ubuntu will likely also need to admit that Upstart failed and plan for a switch. If your vote decides that Debian will choose systemd, and as a result upstreams conclusively drop any support for Upstart while Ubuntu still wants to keep using it, do you believe this will not have any negative consequences for your career at Canonical? I consider this the biggest question about the conflict of interest, more than direct you must vote this way pressure from your employer. I would see it the same way... it's not only a question whether objective ruling would be made, but also whether it could bring our tech-ctte members into troubles when they decide (i.e. against upstream). And another issue: If e.g. tech-ctte (with some Canonical employees in it) now decides in favour of upstart... then we'll see forever people who challenge the neutrality and objectiveness of such decision. The best would probably be, if people who are either - directly involved in the development of any of the discussed init-systems (in the sense of playing a bigger part) - who work for a company which is pushing the respective system (RedHat, Canonical) or - who maintain the respective package in Debian should abstain from the decision, but just provide their technical input and arguments. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:15AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: I don't think the technical experience would be that much of an issue, but I do see being employed by Canonical as a very substantial conflict of interest. IIRC Canonical has made an official statement that they will keep supporting Upstart and believe in it. This is a fairly visible company choice. Your work environment has at least at some level an official policy that Upstart should be considered better than systemd. Ubuntu still wants to keep using Upstart, but if Debian chooses systemd, Ubuntu will likely also need to admit that Upstart failed and plan for a switch. Possibly. It would certainly impose a cost on Canonical. Like any such cost, though, you should expect companies to look at both sides; the counterweight would be that Canonical has built a lot of technology and expertise around Upstart, and switching would carry its own significant costs. One thing to point out is that Ubuntu has come this far without Upstart being the default init system in Debian, and the initial deployment didn't *require* it to be in Debian at all; it's certainly both in the interests of Canonical economically and in the personal interests of those of us who are both Debian and Ubuntu developers to merge back as much as possible, but the relevant stack of patches to add Upstart jobs isn't actually a particularly horrible patch set to have to carry. Sure, there are things like logind integration, but they're not really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. My personal opinion is that you'd have to look at rather a long time interval to reach the point where the effort of leaving things be exceeded the effort of migrating. If your vote decides that Debian will choose systemd, and as a result upstreams conclusively drop any support for Upstart while Ubuntu still wants to keep using it, do you believe this will not have any negative consequences for your career at Canonical? Firstly, many Upstart jobs are carried in packaging, just as many init scripts are. I don't know how much of a dent Debian's decision would make for upstreams, and furthermore I don't know offhand what percentage of packages it would affect even if all upstreams immediately deleted all Upstart support. So this is really a worst-case scenario rather beyond what I would expect. Secondly, I've been at Canonical for a long time and (setting aside false modesty) I believe I have an excellent record in performance reviews and the like. I'd expect to be asked to justify myself if I came to the conclusion that a systemd default was the best thing for Debian, but I'm not afraid for my job. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025230108.ga31...@riva.ucam.org
Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : Possible alternative choices for the GR would be: - switch to systemd, do not permit any other init system - switch to upstart, do not permit any other init system - switch to systemd/upstart for $subset_of_architectures, permit architectures to not support the full set of init systems including lowering the number of supported ones down to one Hi Thorsten, with my experience of having proposed a GR that eventually led to a vote and a lot of bitterness, I recommend one more option, nicknamed rotten tomatoes, that basically says that this GR should never have been proposed. This is a risky option, but at least if it loses to further discussion, there will be less debate on whether it is too easy to start GRs, if this one could have been avoided, etc. If on the other hand it wins to all other options, you will have learned for yourself, at the expense of the other developers, that your understanding of the situation was wrong, which is still less bad than being left with further discussion only. Currently, I would vote rotten tomatoes. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026005751.ga17...@falafel.plessy.net
