Debian votes on init systems

Posted Dec 19, 2019 14:32 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
In reply to: Debian votes on init systems by smurf
Parent article: Debian votes on init systems

Another option is what I did when a similar thing that happened when upstreams for packages I maintained in Fedora refused to port to Python3: drop them from the distro. If they're important enough that those packages cause worry with that kind of response, then I guess you'll have to find a new upstream (in one way or another). This GR is about whether those patches to support alternate init systems is an RC bug or not (not supporting Python3 obviously is, init systems…well, that's what this vote is about, libc? even lower priority I would think).

Debian votes on init systems

Posted Dec 19, 2019 15:19 UTC (Thu) by Zolko (guest, #99166) [Link] (2 responses)

"drop them from the distro"

I think this is the correct approach: Debian making the biggest part of the Linux ecosystem (if you include Ubuntu, Mint...) then a package that is rejected from Debian because of lack of init diversity would rapidly sink into irrelevance, and be replaced by a fork that does support init diversity.

I think that the Debian maintainers don't realize the power they hold over package maintainers. And I think that Red-Hat (IBM now !) realize this also, and systemd is the Trojan horse to take control of the Linux world. Put this in perspective with the Richard Stallman eviction of the FSF: we're witnessing a power-grab of the open-source movement against the free-software brigade.

Debian votes on init systems

Posted Dec 19, 2019 15:28 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> I think this is the correct approach: Debian making the biggest part of the Linux ecosystem (if you include Ubuntu, Mint...) then a package that is rejected from Debian because of lack of init diversity would rapidly sink into irrelevance, and be replaced by a fork that does support init diversity.

You vastly, vastly overstate the importance of Debian packages, especially with respect to the likes of Ubuntu.

(At this point, the number of users running "Debian-derived" distros without systemd as pid1 are a rounding error on the overall userbase)

At the end of the day, a distro that doesn't meet its users needs will fade into irrelevance; and advocating for a policy that excludes software that meets every definition of the DFSG only does a disservice to its users.

> Put this in perspective with the Richard Stallman eviction of the FSF: we're witnessing a power-grab of the open-source movement against the free-software brigade.

Huh? systemd is GPLv2-licensed Free Software.

Debian votes on init systems

Posted Dec 20, 2019 1:11 UTC (Fri) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

> I think that the Debian maintainers don't realize the power they hold over package maintainers. And I think that Red-Hat (IBM now !) realize this also, and systemd is the Trojan horse to take control of the Linux world. Put this in perspective with the Richard Stallman eviction of the FSF: we're witnessing a power-grab of the open-source movement against the free-software brigade.

I think you need a reality check. FOSS is functionally a “meritocracy”; I'm sure you've heard that word plenty of times, as do-nothing hecklers on imageboards seem to love bandying it around as if it somehow elevates them to the status of royalty. What it actually means is those who *do the work* get to make the rules. And they (the people actually doing the work, funding the work, writing the code) have ruled that you as a guest on their property will use systemd, as it means less work for them. Don't like it? Patches welcome.