Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init system

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.

How would you vote?

In general, software may not require one specific init system to be PID 1.
39
83%
Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to add support for any init system, but are not required to.
3
6%
Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed as PID 1.
2
4%
Things are working adequately and thus this General Resolution is not required.
3
6%
 
Total votes: 47

Message
Author
User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init system

#1 Post by saulgoode »

WARNING: If you are using the RedSilver3 forum theme, you may experience problems voting. If this happens, please switch to another theme in your control panel board settings (Subsilver2 worked for me). You can switch your theme back after voting.

As many of you know, there is a General Resolution on Debian's init system policy that is currently under consideration. A General Resolution is a proposal made by Debian Developers for determining governance issues based upon the outcome of voting by all eligible voters. Under Debian's governance model, only Debian Developers are permitted to vote.

This GR will determine to what extent Debian will be committed to using only the systemd project's init system and whether the option of using another init system will be either mandated or encouraged. The specifics of the GR are available on this site and therein the four choices available to be voted upon are described in detail.

The above poll is an unofficial survey of how the members of this forum might vote if they were permitted to. It only briefly describes each of the four choices available so if you are unfamiliar with the issue, please visit the aforementioned official webpage to get a more detailed description of the choices.

The current situation is that systemd is the default init system chosen for the next Debian release (Jessie) and that support for other init systems -- including continued support for the current default Sysvinit -- is encouraged, but not mandated. None of the choices available for this General Resolution attempt to change the chosen default init system for Jessie; and at the time of this posting, no packages are expected to be impacted by the outcome of this GR. It is only to what extent alternatives are to be supported going forward that is at issue.

An informal characterization of the four choices, in my own words, would be:
  1. This choice would provide a mandate to Debian package maintainers to provide support for an alternative to systemd. Such a mandate might provide some leverage toward upstreams to accommodate alternative inits with their software, or it might result in packages being unable to enter Debian. It might also make Debian package maintainers feeling deprived of their rights to decide what is best.
  2. This choice is pretty much the way policy for Jessie is right now, though this choice might provide some degree of emphasis that package maintainers should, but are not required to, accommodate alternative init systems.
  3. This choice suggests that a package can indeed depend upon a specific init system and the decision is up to the individual package maintainers -- maintainers would not be compelled to consider accommodating alternatives.
  4. This choice says that this General Resolution is unnecessary.
The official discussion period has not yet started but when it does it will likely last for only seven days. I would encourage any members of this forum who are interested in voicing their opinions on this topic, regardless of what those opinions may be, to submit an email to the Debian Vote mailing list (debian-vote@lists.debian.org). If you do post to the mailing list, please leave a link to your email in this thread so that others might read it (and its responses).

And, of course, you can discuss the vote here.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

User avatar
dasein
Posts: 7680
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#2 Post by dasein »

Cool idea. :cool:

The reason for my vote is simple: code modularity isn't just "the Unix philosophy." It's elementary programming hygiene.

Really.

fruitofloom
Posts: 183
Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#3 Post by fruitofloom »

One could easily create one account after the other as long the vote is anonymous.
Just saying.

I voted for option one.
I created the account for this purpose, but once have been a member at this board, quite an active one, and also have been using Debian for quite a while. Decided to change the distro due to the problem discussed in this very thread.
I will leave it to dasein to check my IP and reveal who i am.

I would have voted for "remove systemd alltogether" assuming that would have been an option. I don't care for initsystems at all, but sure don't want systemd (for the reasons disscussed all over the net, but mainly the lack of reputation of it's developers)

My first sentence tries to point out the following:
A user with one post only and picking an option isn't that convincing.

-
Weird that a non-debian user, as far i know, cares enough for Debian to make this thread (of course the whole Linux community would gain more than just a bit if Debian would decide to stand up).
Thanks for that.
Give me convenience or give me death.

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#4 Post by saulgoode »

fruitofloom wrote:One could easily create one account after the other as long the vote is anonymous.
Just saying.
I did not see an option for making the voters' identity public, though it would be a good idea. I would probably not change it at this point (were doing so possible) as those who have already voted may have done so expecting that their identity would remain anonymous.

This is an informal survey and is unlikely to provide any convincing one way or the other. Submitting more than one vote would be disrespectful to the whole idea of us sharing our opinions on the issue and would lessen whatever limited utility the survey might have. If someone cares about the outcome of this General Resolution, their efforts would by far better spent posting directly to the debian-vote mailing list.
fruitofloom wrote:I would have voted for "remove systemd alltogether" assuming that would have been an option.
I imagine you aren't alone in this, or even just in wishing that systemd were not made the default init system. Nonetheless, I consider it useful to have this survey address the same options as the Debian Developers will be considering.
fruitofloom wrote:Weird that a non-debian user, as far i know, cares enough for Debian to make this thread (of course the whole Linux community would gain more than just a bit if Debian would decide to stand up).
Thanks for that.
Yes, I am a Slackware user -- but I have always admired, recommended, and to a small extent contributed to the Debian Project. Debian's promotion of Free Software has been unsurpassed by any other distro and this has made it worthy of the support of anybody who cares about software freedom. My opinion is that Debian's choice of following systemd is a dramatic setback toward this aspect of the Project (and I expect to be directing my focus toward other endeavors should this GR fail).
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#5 Post by edbarx »

I voted for the first option in the list as that is what guarantees software choice. Hardwiring desktops and window managers with a particular init system is bad by deseign, but it is the only strategy for software lockins.

Keep software lock-ins away from Debian.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

fruitofloom
Posts: 183
Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#6 Post by fruitofloom »

saulgoode: i have been pretty unclear.
I tried to say that it might be an idea if people who vote make a short statement (i voted for option [x]), even if they don't want to "discuss" (easy to understand, systemd is really getting discussed more than enough)
That is not up to you, but to the people who vote.
It was really just a thought, a short note.

I also tried to explain why i as a one time user created an account with the only purpose to participate in the poll. To keep it fair-play, so to say.

Probably not that hard to figure out that i went by the name nadir and jalu ...
I didn't give up on Debian lighthearted
(regarding your statement about Debian in your last post, i do agree that it is a dramatic setback. I fail to see other options than Slackware, Gentoo and Dragora, the two first being more "mature")

Thanks again. Good idea.
Give me convenience or give me death.

User avatar
golinux
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#7 Post by golinux »

fruitofloom wrote:Probably not that hard to figure out that i went by the name nadir and jalu ...
Not hard at all after I started reading your first post. Of course, I also voted for #1! But I'm not ready to abandon Debian until Squeeze and Wheezy are dead and continuing with Debian is no longer a viable option.

FYI, fsmithred as just posted a Proto-Refracta Jessie with sysvinit iso.

Thank you for setting up this poll. Makes me feel better to see the votes coming in . . .
May the FORK be with you!

User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5346
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#8 Post by dilberts_left_nut »

Voting for 2 (doesn't want to work from my phone will try again later).
(edit: still won't work - "the submtted form is invalid" ... ? )

1 would be preferable, but not really practical in reality I think.
"Requiring" the maintainer to provide functionality that upstream has abandoned, in some cases would be onerous and lead to dev's dropping packages because of workload, or pieces of "important" software being removed for not complying with the policy (this may be quite acceptable to some - and I wouldn't miss gnome at all - although it's probably not a viable option for Debian as an ongoing project.

I'm really not enthused by systemd and the implications thereof, (and I'm pretty disappointed that it got to be a default in Jessie) but the reality as i see it is that it is up to upstream to decide how their software operates, rather than the Debian maintainers of said package.

I do think it is important to say (loudly) that (unrelated) packages in Debian SHOULD NOT dictate a particular init.
Whether the upstreams will hear that or not remains to be seen.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...

mmix
Posts: 205
Joined: 2012-07-14 00:08

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#9 Post by mmix »

english is not my mother language, so i dunno what is going on, but
i had purged my arch linux and jump to void-linux which is using runit by default
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTc4NDM

User avatar
mor
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-08-28 15:16
Location: mor@debian

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#10 Post by mor »

I didn't vote, because I don't possess the necessary understanding of the technical aspects of the issue at hand (I wonder if all those who voted/will vote do).

One thing that I would ask for instance is how it can be the maintainers' job to make a package not depending on systemd.

A most glaring case is Gnome, which I suppose wouldn't even be a problem for most detractors who easily hate it as well, but let's talk about it for argument's sake.
How feasible would it be for Debian's maintainers to package a systemd-less Gnome?

This is also related to the "adopting systemd is against freedom" argument: if Gnome is impossible (which includes not having the resources to do it when technically possible) to package as not dependent on systemd, the only option for Debian would be to get rid of Gnome in order to maintain the freedom of users not to use systemd with Gnome.
Extend the discourse to most packages, or all, as many detractors seem to depict our doom as, and you will find that in order to avoid systemd, a distro should simply cease to provide packages, hence to exist.

Now, of course the Gnome example is probably too extreme for the point I'm trying to make, there certainly are packages who can easily be non systemd-dependent, but I hope you catch my drift: does option 1 take into account the feasibility of it?
Because if, as saulgoode rightly said, the Debian decision doesn't leverage upstream into supporting other init systems, then what?

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#11 Post by edbarx »

mor wrote:I didn't vote, because I don't possess the necessary understanding of the technical aspects of the issue at hand (I wonder if all those who voted/will vote do).
Without any intended offence whatsoever, as you are entitled to your view, even if it is offensive, let me phrase my post in a rather humorous way.

:?

:shock:

:!:

:?:


Got it! :idea: :mrgreen:


I have been coding since 1995 which means I should have gained some concepts of what it entails to code. Using the GNU maintainer tools effectively or proficiently doesn't mean one is incapable of writing source code.

Although I am in my late forties, and at the moment I am quite weak, I am not afraid of writing my own OS initialisation system. systemd looks like not being the right candidate to serve my OS. The other 'fatal' attraction is grsecurity but my computer does not have a very powerful CPU (T4400) and kernel compilations take ages.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

User avatar
fleabus
Posts: 98
Joined: 2013-08-28 18:36
Location: Winchester, VA, USA

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#12 Post by fleabus »

Voted for Ian Jackson's original #1, but I do agree with dilbert's re #2.
Last edited by fleabus on 2014-11-25 02:14, edited 3 times in total.
Lenovo Legion 5-15IMH05 32GB Ram, 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD

fruitofloom
Posts: 183
Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#13 Post by fruitofloom »

dilberts_left_nut wrote: "Requiring" the maintainer to provide functionality that upstream has abandoned, in some cases would be onerous and lead to dev's dropping packages because of workload, or pieces of "important" software being removed for not complying with the policy (this may be quite acceptable to some - and I wouldn't miss gnome at all - although it's probably not a viable option for Debian as an ongoing project.
Not sure which packages that would be, the only one i know of is gnome, and it doesn't seem to be that hard a requirement:
http://funtoo.org
Doesn't look like a project like funtoo is that big. To me

And if a debian maintainer changes the upstream code, then he *has* to offer it as a patch to upstream. It is an important part of the packaging process.

Would upstream ( a developer of software, or a team) really decide to take a path focused at a smaller part of all distros?
Looked to me, in the past, as if they had the urge to be not only initsystem or distro, but even operating system independent (And from the little i understand that is one of the reasons for Makefiles. config checks which OS running on and make will run accordingly to the OS).

All of that @mor too.

both of you take in account all the users who will give up on Debian (and in the long run perhaps Linux) too? Or the other case: not recommend it to others anymore (see above, saulgoode). Not only a few considered me a Debian fanboy, defending everything going on in Debian (say the installer). I for one gave up on Debian. And from what i see quite some people do it ("hey, ex-Debian user here, got a little question ....").

In short:
1) yes, it is the maintainers job
2) i doubt upstream will ignore
Give me convenience or give me death.

User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5346
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#14 Post by dilberts_left_nut »

fruitofloom wrote:Not sure which packages that would be, the only one i know of is gnome, and it doesn't seem to be that hard a requirement:
Maybe the "plumbing" subsystems (udev consolekit etc.) could be more problematic to replace/maintain on non-systemd init's? - I don't know.

And if a debian maintainer changes the upstream code, then he *has* to offer it as a patch to upstream. It is an important part of the packaging process.

Would upstream ( a developer of software, or a team) really decide to take a path focused at a smaller part of all distros?
I can think of one particular camp that could be not interested in taking such patches...

In short:
1) yes, it is the maintainers job
2) i doubt upstream will ignore
Fully agree, I just think a hard requirement (as per option 1) could lead to a bigger restriction of "freedom of choice" than option 2 - it's more likely to work if people do it because they want to rather than being told to..
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...

fruitofloom
Posts: 183
Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#15 Post by fruitofloom »

dilberts_left_nut wrote:
fruitofloom wrote:Not sure which packages that would be, the only one i know of is gnome, and it doesn't seem to be that hard a requirement:
Maybe the "plumbing" subsystems (udev consolekit etc.) could be more problematic to replace/maintain on non-systemd init's? - I don't know.
I don't know too. Really not.
...
Let that sink for a while (i really don't know). Just chatting.

To me it sounds, at minimum, weird, that after less than 4 years of development of systemd suddenly so much stuff seems to depend on it (or relate to it). udev, consolekit, what-not (for most of that i got no really understanding what *exactly* it does).

For udev there would be eudev.

-
I do see your point (less choice if option 1 is selected). Not sure if i agree (like said above: the only thing which makes any sense to me is to remove systemd altogether), but i can see where you are coming from.
Right now there doesn't seem to be much choice if they don't want systemd. Would have been good if at least one of the big players (rpm or deb based) would offer a different init system (and with "offer" i mean offer it in a comfortable way, not by dirty hacks and workarounds and lack of whatnot).
Give me convenience or give me death.

pcalvert
Posts: 1939
Joined: 2006-04-21 11:19
Location: Sol Sector
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#16 Post by pcalvert »

fruitofloom wrote: To me it sounds, at minimum, weird, that after less than 4 years of development of systemd suddenly so much stuff seems to depend on it (or relate to it). udev, consolekit, what-not (for most of that i got no really understanding what *exactly* it does).
Yes, it seems very much like an invented problem.

Phil
Freespoke is a new search engine that respects user privacy and does not engage in censorship.

User avatar
koanhead
Posts: 109
Joined: 2013-06-20 16:54

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#17 Post by koanhead »

I have "voted" for #1, for the following reasons.

First, I don't find the proposal as harmful as some would paint it. A few have implied or stated that a slew of RC bugs would be magically created, keeping lots of packages out of Jessie and delaying the release. I'm afraid that Jessie's release probably *will* be delayed, barring a miracle, but as far as I can tell bug reports don't magically create themselves. In most cases the creation of a bug report requires human input; in fact I'm not aware of any circumstance where automated creation of bug reports is used and I suspect it would be frowned upon. I think it's a good idea that people should be allowed to create a bug report on software that is suddenly broken for no obviously legitimate reason, or which attempts to replace a core component of one's system on upgrade.

In general, I think it's better for packages that actually require certain functionality to depend on the functionality itself, using the Provides: field, than to depend specifically on a 'magic-fairy-dust' package that provides everything to everyone and immediately obsoletes everything else.

If I hadn't chosen a side before reading the -vote thread on this GR, then I certainly would have been impelled to choose one by the tone of the arguments there. If you don't want to contribute to Debian, then you don't have to. If the project's policies mean your contributions don't make it into a release without certain well-specified changes, that's not the same as 'coercing' you to make those changes. To me, that sounds a lot like privilege speaking. If all the GNOME developers flee Debian en masse, that would be a Bad Thing... but it wouldn't be the end of Debian, and just maybe it would lead the project to work on amending the NM process and the path to DD-hood so that more people would be available to "do the work" certain people are constantly exhorting us to do.

EDIT:

To amplify further- some on the -vote thread have suggested that the debate is about systemd vs. sysvinit. This isn't the case. Hardly anyone is advocating for the continuation of sysvinit as default, let alone for deprecating systemd entirely in favor of sysvinit. Personally I think that systemd, for all its problems, is basically decent software and deserving of inclusion in Debian. I don't even have a particular problem with systemd-as-default-init, provided that I can still use other software with other inits. I've seen a few people both on -user and on this forum who advocate either for the removal of systemd as an option or a return to sysvinit as default. I don't think there's any reason to think that either of those positions is so popular that it's appropriate to paint anyone who is arguing pro-#1 as "pro-sysvinit" or "anti-systemd".

I don't know what compelling features GNOME-in-Jessie has due to its systemd dependency that GNOME-in-Wheezy lacks. Are these features so compelling that to voluntarily choose to eschew them (either by avoiding systemd (as I do) or by avoiding GNOME (as I also do) ) makes one a Luddite? If so, let's have some discussion about these features and why they are de rigeur. What is it that you can do with systemd that I can't do with sysvinit + OpenRC + other existing services?
Last edited by koanhead on 2014-10-29 20:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fleabus
Posts: 98
Joined: 2013-08-28 18:36
Location: Winchester, VA, USA

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#18 Post by fleabus »

[removedby::fleabus]
Last edited by fleabus on 2014-11-25 02:16, edited 3 times in total.
Lenovo Legion 5-15IMH05 32GB Ram, 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#19 Post by saulgoode »

dilberts_left_nut wrote:Voting for 2 (doesn't want to work from my phone will try again later).
(edit: still won't work - "the submtted form is invalid" ... ? )
Were you able to resolve this, yet? It is concerning if you are unable to vote and if there is something that needs to be done by me to address this, please let me know.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5346
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Discussion for General Resolution on Debian's init syste

#20 Post by dilberts_left_nut »

Just tried again and no - same reply.
I note there is no other votes for 2 either.
edit: with a couple of different browsers and machines.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...

Post Reply