|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The Debian init system general resolution returns

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 20, 2014 13:27 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335)
In reply to: The Debian init system general resolution returns by anselm
Parent article: The Debian init system general resolution returns

Not to my knowledge either, which is why there's no reason this proposal should have any influence on the release date of Jessie, and is currently a no-op. The outcome of the GR will only determine if it will remain a no-op after the release, when systemd is the default.

> I don't think package maintainers will deliberately refuse to merge contributions

And I'm not so sure about that. This GR will (or will not) give me the reassurance that any work done on alternative init implementations (or maintenance of sysvinit) will not be blocked simply by systemd being the default.

This GR isn't about shoving around work; it's about reassuring those who are not (yet) convinced about systemd, that Debian is still a suitable distribution for them and that their contributions are welcome.


to post comments

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 20, 2014 15:31 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

This GR will (or will not) give me the reassurance that any work done on alternative init implementations (or maintenance of sysvinit) will not be blocked simply by systemd being the default.

I think that the GR is only peripherally connected with that. As I said, even without the GR it is unlikely that package maintainers will deliberately decline to include support for other init systems than systemd if that support is volunteered by interested third parties.

It seems to me, though, that the GR in its present form tries to force package maintainers to create support for additional init systems even if the upstream package doesn't come with such support and nobody else steps forward to do it. In addition, it is unclear whether packages must support all init systems that are part of Debian or whether any two will do as long as one of them is systemd. One might also ask exactly what actually constitutes an “init system”.

In my opinion it is unreasonable to ask package maintainers to actively create support in their packages for additional non-default init systems. As of now most if not all relevant packages do support sysvinit, and that support should not be removed without good cause. Bug reports can be opened if required, and if the package maintainers don't (or can't) take care of them themselves then those people who are sufficiently interested in keeping sysvinit support going in Debian can help out. The same goes for support for things like Upstart; I don't think package maintainers should be compelled to add, debug, and maintain Upstart support for packages that don't come with it in the first place. If they want to do it, fine; but let those people who are interested in widespread Upstart support in Debian do the work if the package maintainer won't or can't do it, and have the package maintainer integrate it once it is done.

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 20, 2014 17:32 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

Uhm there is a whole existing workflow to overrule maintainers who are going to not take contributed patches. This GR doesn't not add to it.

What this GR does is make specific set of potential release blockers... regardless of whether patches have been contributed or not.

And let me be clear about this... this GR is not scoped to be just about ensuring a systemd transition from sysvinit.

In the future, post jesse if uselessd shows up in the repo, and uselessd works as a systemd replacement that will meet the requirement of this GR, without anything having to continue to work with sysvinit.

And that is the fundamental problem with this GR. It's not actually addressing the specific ongoing concern of making sure users can transition from old default (sysvinit) to new default (systemd) with minimal disruption.

The abstract language of the GR about init choice is just silly. Nobody really expected everything to work with mini as an alternative init without a lot of close hand-to-hand combat by the admin. The "freedom" to choose an alternative init has been until this point in time the "freedom" to break your system by choosing to use an alternative init.

This GR tries to make an overly broad policy statement that drastically changes the character of how all alternative inits are to be handled, but does not actually do anything to address the ongoing concern of transitioning from an old default init to a new default init...which is the only actionable concern that was triggered by choosing to change the default init.

-jef


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds