Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:51:57PM +, Marco d'Itri wrote: > ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > > >I don't want to be having this conversation again in a year's time, > > its replacements for syslog, > You are not required to replace your syslog daemon, and indeed the > Debian systemd package does not replace it. > > > cron, > You are not required to replace your cron daemon, and indeed the > Debian systemd package does not replace it. > > > ntpd, > You are not required to replace your NTP daemon, and indeed the > Debian systemd package does not replace it. > Also, systemd-timesyncd is a simple NTP client and cannot replace ntpd > anyway except for a trivial (but common) use case. > > > acpid, > Systemd does not replace acpid. > > Maybe you should try to better understand how systemd actually works > before deciding that you do not like it. :-) There are tons of people who think that all the above functionality does not belong to a init systemd or ecosystem. The problem starts with naming all of them systemd-foobar. It might be a psychological problem but still its a problem for many. By not listening and repeating the above again and again it will not make the resistance got away. It will push our users, lobbyists and con-systemd devs away. A lot of the oldtimers (like me) would agree to this which i read in rant about systemd: "Why replace pam.d, crond, init, and add complexities like dbus in a single package that runs at PID1 when it doesn't need to? Because confident young men in a hurry to make their own mark on the world have little time for learning the tools or the lessons of the past." Every time someone tells me about the shiny new features i must think of this. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:10:59AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Which is why sticking to the lowest common denominator among init > systems is the worst thing we could do as a project. I would like to stick with lowest common denominator. Everyone who likes the feature bloat of any software can install it on its own. But systemd ist a cul de sack. It aglomerates tons of functionality into a ecosystem where there is no way back. All the proposals i have read are not going far enough for me. I'd like systemd to stay out of debian and if introduced only as an addon for those who wish. Its about choice - This choice is taken from me. Right now as it is i can replace systemd but i am not able to remove cruft like systemd-hostname. (Why on earth is this part of systemd anyway?) I will offer help to anyone willing to start a Debian fork sans systemd. Flo PS: It should be common sense to not force these types of controversial changes to millions of users. The initial debate about systemd showed this before the TCs decision. -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi, On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:00:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something > > > controversial. > > I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about? > Probably because you appear to be in the middle of it... You say vocal - Before this GR i have send 1 in word ONE mail prior commenting the systemd issues on any debian mailinglist. Followed by bug reporting 2 days ago. So i am neither vocal nor part of any group beeing called minority. > > Because of pressure of other upstreams going forward everyone adopted it > > and this makes it non controversial - i dont get it?!? > If you postulate some conspiracy to make everybody use systemd then I do > not think that there is much more that we can argue about. > But even then, if this alleged pressure has been strong enough to make > every non-kooky distribution adopt systemd then it should be obvious > that resisting it would be futile for us as well. I am not saying its a conspiracy. I dont understand the hurry - For me systemd came from behind the couch 24 months ago and suddenly its the best invention since sliced bread. I am just courious about any integral part of my system beeing rewritten in a revolutionary way and people beeing very loud about it beeing the best thing ever happened. Its the same with people telling me their hash has no collisions or their crypto is unbreakable - Curiosity should apply to all technical decisions and i say this has not been done with systemd. Nobody thought of the consequences it causes using all those little bells and whistles systemd brought with it. As we discovered the last months its basically impossible already to dissect systemd from any debian system. You end up with a handful of systemd- daemons doings thing like presenting the hostname via DBUS (WTF?) and stuff. I dont like this trend - systemd already mixes beeing pid 1 and beeing an aglomerated blob of nearly ANY low level functionality any unix system needs like syslog, timekeeping etc. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:52:26AM +, Marco d'Itri wrote: > f...@zz.de wrote: > > >for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and > >by something > >as controversal as the systemd stuff. > A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something > controversial. I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about? > Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributions I > would say that for such a big change it is not controversial at all. Because of pressure of other upstreams going forward everyone adopted it and this makes it non controversial - i dont get it?!? > >We already got to the "point of no return" with systemd - and THIS is > >something > >i guess is not something our users asked for, and something the TC did not > >foresee. > "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a > better horse". And even then the invention of the car was controversial and its even 100 years now. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi Ansgar, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Ian Jackson writes: > > I think that if necessary we might have to delay the release. That > > would be a matter for the release team. I would be very unhappy if we > > ditched the ability of people to choose a different init system simply > > to maintain our release schedule. > > Hurray, what a great idea to delay everything *now*. > > And all because some people believe in conspiracy theories about Red > Hat... Nope - My feeling is that we are rushing systemd as fast as possible pushed for example by the Gnome ecosystem and every warning voice is beeing shut by "we need feature X because Y". We/I have lived with the "inadequate" init system for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and by something as controversal as the systemd stuff. The arguments to replace the init system were dishonest (We need dependency booting because booting is slow) in the beginning, and the arguments got replaced with complete different feature argumentation now. And controversy with systemd even grew more over time since the TCs decision because of the amount of other software projects or functionality systemd maintainers decided to swallow - its not an init system anymore. Now - after a comparable short time we are already in the position that degradation of the OSes capabilities when not using systemd is beeing acceptable to the some/most/all? of our developers. Is this acceptable to our users? The major systemd proponents dont care. Debian as an institution should care: "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community." We already got to the "point of no return" with systemd - and THIS is something i guess is not something our users asked for, and something the TC did not foresee. If not now - when do people think we can stop and hopefully revert this trend? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call > for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that > proposed by Matthew Vernon in March: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg0.html > and the substantive text is that which was drafted for the purposes of > the technical committee's vote (where they decided not to pass a > resolution on the subject). > > IMO developments since March show that the concerns put forward then > were well-founded. Following discussions elsewhere including -devel I > have received enough offers of seconds by private email. > > As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the > issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring > this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on > the jessie release. > > Thanks, > Ian. > > ** Begin Proposal ** > > 0. Rationale > > Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its > default init system for the next release. The technical committee > decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether > other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system. > > This GR seeks to preserve the freedom of our users now to select an > init system of their choice, and the project's freedom to select a > different init system in the future. It will avoid Debian becoming > accidentally locked in to a particular init system (for example, > because so much unrelated software has ended up depending on a > particular init system that the burden of effort required to change > init system becomes too great). A number of init systems exist, and > it is clear that there is not yet broad consensus as to what the > best init system might look like. > > This GR does not make any comment on the relative merits of > different init systems; the technical committee has decided upon the > default init system for Linux for jessie. > > 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy > > For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical > policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows: > > 2. Loose coupling of init systems > > In general, software may not require a specific init system to be > pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows: > >* alternative init system implementations >* special-use packages such as managers for init systems >* cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init > systems > > provided that these are not themselves required by other software > whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system. > > Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as > the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would > consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all > users. So the lack of support for a particular init system does not > excuse a bug nor reduce its severity; but conversely, nor is a bug > more serious simply because it is an incompatibility of some software > with some init system(s). > > Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches > to enable improved interoperation with various init systems. > > 3. Notes and rubric > > This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day > (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override > clause in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February. > > The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie > stands undisturbed. > > However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text > in sections (1) and (2) above. Seconded. -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
