Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Posted Dec 9, 2016 19:15 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: Why should people care about Debian? by mgb
Parent article: Maintainerless Debian?
It seems to me that contributing upstream by writing and maintaining non-systemd code paths would be a far more productive use of everyone's time than the effort of forking an entire distro to merely purge libsystemd.so from one's hard disk. ConsoleKit is a great example of something that has bitrotten into an unusable state.
But hey, far be it for me to tell someone else how to spend their free time. I spend mine reverse-engineering printers, after all.
Posted Dec 9, 2016 19:59 UTC (Fri)
by mgb (guest, #3226)
[Link] (17 responses)
It is a few Debian devs who have added the gratuitous dependencies on systemd.
This is unfortunate for the ex-universal operating system but fortunately the Devuan devs have restored users' ability to try interesting new software whenever it is appears.
Posted Dec 9, 2016 20:23 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
On a system that doesn't actually run systemd, libsystemd does nothing, so having it installed isn't really much of a problem. If upstream includes it, you probably create more potential trouble by ripping it out than you do by leaving it in.
IOW, there is no pressing need to fork a whole distribution simply to get rid of libsystemd, unless you're on a crusade against anything that has “systemd” in its name. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Posted Dec 9, 2016 21:15 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (15 responses)
Again, every single bit of software that truly depends on systemd at runtime (be it through a hard requirement or an optional compile-time feature) was done so by its upstream, not some unnamed Debian developers that you continue to disparage (while at the same time, taking advantage of their hard work).
Posted Dec 9, 2016 22:12 UTC (Fri)
by mgb (guest, #3226)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Dec 9, 2016 22:51 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Software in Debian is supposed to work well with systemd, since systemd is the default init system on Debian. This means that a Debian developer will generally add the “--with-systemd” configuration switch (or omit the “--without-systemd” switch) when packaging an upstream package that includes such a switch. A dependency on libsystemd has no severe impact on systems that run other init systems because on such systems, libsystemd does nothing. It certainly does not restrict people's “flexibility and freedom” any more than any other library dependency (like on, say, libreadline) would.
It would be a disservice to Debian's users not to build a Debian package such that it takes advantage of systemd's features on those Debian machines that do run systemd, if the package offers that option. Having said that, I don't think that Debian developers actively add libsystemd support to packages that don't already include such support (optional or not) in the upstream version, such that the Devuan people feel obliged to take that support out again. Do you have any specific examples of such packages?
Posted Dec 10, 2016 1:30 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (3 responses)
Thank you for the compliment, but it's not about being clever -- I try to be precise and consistent in my statements. It is also a necessary skill when writing deeply embedded code that Must. Not. Fail.
(And I note that you completely sidestepped what I wrote)
> Systemd is one of a very few pieces of UNIX-ish software which does not run on non-Linux.
Nobody (least of all the systemd authors) has claimed otherwise.
> Converting an optional feature to a hard dependency is trivial but tedious work which the Devuan devs have to reverse in order to remove the unnecessary dependencies.
I'm sorry, who (and to what) are you claiming has done this "trivial but tedious conversion to a hard dependency" that needs must be reversed? Please cite a specific example.
> Devuan devs remove gratuitous dependencies to give users like me more flexibility and freedom and for this I am grateful. I fail to see why a few Debian devs are so intent on removing flexibility and freedom, particularly as it hinders the future evolution of F/LOSS.
You are arguing that adding a feature/option hinders your flexibility and freedom, while removing feature/option adds to your flexibility and freedom. It's an odd position to take, given that it directly contradicts the dictionary definitions of those words.
Posted Dec 10, 2016 2:59 UTC (Sat)
by mgb (guest, #3226)
[Link] (2 responses)
Not so. If one adds the option locked_in_a_small_box to pizza, pizza's flexibility and freedom is limited. Systemd's broad scope and excessive coupling hinders the development of new and better F/LOSS.
We disagree, but why does it concern you? I was unhappy when Debian started restricting my freedom. Devuan devs have kindly worked around that problem saving me the effort and I am happy again. I believe Devuan provides more flexibility for the future evolution of F/LOSS.
But why do you care about Devuan, whether I am right or wrong? You have Debian. I have Devuan. Is there some reason you need to use systemd in Devuan?
Posted Dec 10, 2016 9:57 UTC (Sat)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link] (1 responses)
Wrong. That's only if you *force* the pizza to be locked in a small box. Adding an option never limited anything.
Also, systemd is neither small nor a lock-in. You can always do your own thing, systemd or not.
> Systemd's broad scope and excessive coupling hinders the development of new and better F/LOSS.
That has been demonstrated to be wrong. What hindered the development of new+better, in the past, was the fact that all previous solutions only solved part of the problem, thus switching to them never was attractive enough to actually happen, so most developers didn't bother.
The sole exception to this was Canonical's Upstart, but that had a different set of problems (some technical, some political) which eventually prevented it from getting adopted more widely.
The mere existence of systemd doesn't hinder anything. It just raises the bar. A lot.
> I was unhappy when Debian started restricting my freedom.
You never had the "freedom" to compel a Debian developer to not include a particular feature or to not require a library in their package in the first place.
Posted Dec 10, 2016 10:11 UTC (Sat)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link]
Posted Dec 10, 2016 1:48 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (8 responses)
Oh, I should point out that the 'sysvinit' package is Linux-specific and non-portable. Indeed, each UNIX (and BSD) has its own unique, non-portable init whose implementation is closely tied to its underlying kernel.
(And at a higher level, only the most trivial of "init scripts" were portable to different Linuxes, to say nothing about different UNIX-ish systems)
Posted Dec 11, 2016 16:21 UTC (Sun)
by guillemj (subscriber, #49706)
[Link] (7 responses)
That's not correct. I would know because I've been involved in its porting many years ago. It also did not require many changes to make it build and work on non-Linux systems. In Debian it works on all of GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd. Also start-stop-daemon (provided by dpkg), which is the foundation most init scripts in Debian are based on, works also on any of the BSDs, Mac OS X, AIX and should work on Solaris and HP-UX too.
Posted Dec 11, 2016 17:35 UTC (Sun)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
That doesn't detract from the fact that Linux was pretty much the only Unix-like system that actually still used System-V init. Virtually all the other Unixes had come up with their own alternatives to System-V init years earlier
Systemd is actually pretty late to the party, which in a way is an advantage because the systemd developers had the opportunity to look at many of the other systems in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and use that information in the design of systemd.
Posted Dec 12, 2016 11:15 UTC (Mon)
by jaromil (guest, #97970)
[Link] (4 responses)
Overall this whole thread is reassuring to read: on the systemd camp are always the same people. Yet I hoped this discussion could stay on topic about the maintainer issue raised by this good article, a topic which concerns very much Devuan well beyond the init diatribe.
What a pity for LWN that these hooligans are always around to sabotage the conversation.
Posted Dec 12, 2016 11:26 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
So as a matter of interest, how many people are actively contributing to Devuan and how do you handle the issue of who maintains which packages? Does Devuan encourage co-maintainership or “maintainerlessness” to a greater degree than Debian does today? What could Debian learn from Devuan as far as organising package maintainership is concerned?
Posted Dec 12, 2016 15:20 UTC (Mon)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
I do hope that we can stop rehashing the systemd discussion now?
Posted Dec 12, 2016 15:34 UTC (Mon)
by jaromil (guest, #97970)
[Link]
Posted Dec 12, 2016 16:35 UTC (Mon)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
> h/t. Cleverly argued. You could have been a lawyer.
do not exactly help keeping a discussion civil and on-topic either, and
> these hooligans
is far less civil in tone, if not meaning, than anything the sytemd proponents have posted here.
Incidentally, nobody has yet even tried to explain why removing libsystemd.so from Devuan helps its cause.
Posted Dec 12, 2016 12:35 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
"did not require many changes" rather undermisnes the argument that it is universal. (it uses all sorts of kernel-, libc-, and even compiler-specific bits)
But thanks for the correction.
> Also start-stop-daemon (provided by dpkg), which is the foundation most init scripts in Debian are based on, works also on any of the BSDs, Mac OS X, AIX and should work on Solaris and HP-UX too.
Speaking for AIX, OSX and Solaris specifically (I can't comment on the BSDs or HPUX), start-stop-daemon may technically run but will clash with their native tools (src, launchd and smf, respectively).
Also, even on the pure Linux side of things, start-stop-daemon is only guaranteed to exist (and be remotely up-to-date) on Debian and its derivatives.
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
h/t. Cleverly argued. You could have been a lawyer.
Why should people care about Debian?
Discounting software that runs on self-contained language runtimes (eg Python, Perl, PHP, NodeJS, or Java) that "run everywhere" their runtime has been ported, the overwhelming majority of the upstream code in Debian does *not* run on non-Linux (okay, non-UNIXish) operating systems.
Systemd is one of a very few pieces of UNIX-ish software which does not run on non-Linux.
Again, every single bit of software that truly depends on systemd at runtime (be it through a hard requirement or an optional compile-time feature) was done so by its upstream, not some unnamed Debian developers that you continue to disparage (while at the same time, taking advantage of their hard work).
Converting an optional feature to a hard dependency is trivial but tedious work which the Devuan devs have to reverse in order to remove the unnecessary dependencies. Devuan devs remove gratuitous dependencies to give users like me more flexibility and freedom and for this I am grateful. I fail to see why a few Debian devs are so intent on removing flexibility and freedom, particularly as it hinders the future evolution of F/LOSS.
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?
I hoped this discussion could stay on topic about the maintainer issue raised by this good article, a topic which concerns very much Devuan well beyond the init diatribe.
If you wanted the comment thread to stay on topic, then maybe you shouldn't have posted a top-level comment pitching the Devuan beta? I'm sorry, but the diversion here started at the top.
Hooligans
Hooligans
Why should people care about Debian?
Why should people care about Debian?