Debian User Forums

Another GR on init, this time from Sam Hartman, the current DPL:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002

And a followup on this proposal from Ian Jackson:
https://lwn.net/ml/debian-vote/24014.36 ... nd.org.uk/

Here's a reminder of what went down last time this happened almost exactly 5 years ago . . . dasein's astute "Combatting revisionist history"
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=120652

Well at least all three options include a commitment to support downstreams with their efforts to provide alternative init systems.

I hope Debian vote for the first proposal but...

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Well at least all three options include a commitment to support downstreams with their efforts to provide alternative init systems.

I hope Debian vote for the first proposal but...

According to dasein's analysis, it might have a chance. There will undoubtedly be a second draft after comments have been considered.

golinux, thanks for the links. I particularly appreciate the posts from dasein. I'm really not qualified to comment directly but I want to add an amateur's impression.

To me, Debian has always been about package management. With relative ease users can install packages and their dependencies automatically follow. My system has an Openbox platform but has components from Lxde, Xfce, Gnome and probably others. That's the Debian magic; we can to a great degree cherry pick software. I understand that Systemd requires special packaging that creates an all or nothing situation. The developers over at Devuan are doing an heroic job reversing Systemd's hooks. (Or something like that. As I said, I'm an amateur observer. ) The thing is, there should never have been a need for Devuan; Systemd should be written such that users can continue to cherry pick those components they want, even Systemd components and/or dependencies.

The Debian package management allows for, encourages, creative development. Yes, it is important that Debian has room for alternate inits without restriction to limited systems. Converting to an alternate init should be as easy as apt-get install . . . .

The team at MX Linux have made an excellent compromise by shipping with Systemd but enabling SysV by default. Maybe Debian should take a leaf out of that book.
None of us mere users will be voting in the GR anyway.

sunrat wrote:The team at MX Linux have made an excellent compromise by shipping with Systemd but enabling SysV by default. Maybe Debian should take a leaf out of that book.

I don't think enabling sysvinit by default is a good idea at this stage. Too many packages don't ship init scripts already and the scripts that are supplied aren't being tested by the maintainers, generally.

OK, just been reading Ian Jackson's most excellent forth proposal in the GR and I noticed that it includes this bit:

Negative general comments about software and their communities, including both about systemd itself and about non-systemd init systems, are strongly discouraged. Neither messages expressing general dislike of systemd, nor predictions of the demise of non-systemd systems, are appropriate for Debian communication fora; likewise references to bugs which are not relevant to the topic at hand.

Communications on Debian fora on these matters should all be encouraging and pleasant, even when discussing technical problems. We ask that communication fora owners strictly enforce this.

*Gulps*

@golinux: you have been warned

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Communications on Debian fora on these matters should all be encouraging and pleasant, even when discussing technical problems. We ask that communication fora owners strictly enforce this.

*Gulps*
@golinux: you have been warned

Are you the forum's appointed thought police now? This would have been more important and appropriate information to convey. There is now a 5th resolution to consider:

Proposal E Proposer

Dmitry Bogatov [kaction@debian.org] [text of latest proposal]
Proposal E Seconds

Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org] [mail]
Matthew Vernon [matthew@debian.org] [mail]
Jonathan Carter [jcc@debian.org] [mail]
Kyle Robbertze [paddatrapper@debian.org] [mail]
Axel Beckert [abe@debian.org] [mail]

Proposal E

Choice 5: Init diversity is Required

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively with systemd and no support for running without systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.

Amen to that!