It's Back To Voting For The Debian Init System
Phoronix: It's Back To Voting For The Debian Init System
The Debian technical committee has started a new voting process as they try to determine the default init system going forward for the free software project, largely deciding between systemd and Upstart. The voting process has ultimately failed multiple times before, but there's renewed hope this vote will count...
Just remove FD as an option to vote on. Problem solved.
This is in my opinion great leadership from Bdale. Despite the fact that 6 out of 8 committee members (Bdale, Colin, Don, Keith, Russ, Steve) have expressed that they are uncomfortable with the current T and L, Ian has so far been successful in his crusade to couple the init system decision and these particular options on the policy issue in the collaborative ballot. I therefore agree with Bdale that letting the vote go ahead on the collaborate proposal seem undesirable and unwise and that the default init question should be decided separately.
To be quite honest I am not entirely sure what Ian is trying to get out of coupling the two issues and pushing aggressively for the current L option. The current L seem detrimental even to Upstart that is his preferred init system. For instance, it seems like an Upstart alternative to logind would have to support all init systems (including sysVinit) to be included in the Debian repositories. This makes such an effort less likely and it is hard to see how you can force any volunteer to do this work.
Edit: changed text for clarity.
Last edited by asabjorn; 02-08-2014 at 05:29 PM.
Isn't using systemd for Debian Linux, and FreeBSD's init system for Debian kfreebsd distribution, a rational solution?
Originally Posted by phoronix
Hmm, so Langasek voted FUD. Jackson will most likely also vote FUD. So it's up to the other four whether to cancel this vote (on the grounds of Garbee being a maverick, as Langasek did), or to end this particular question once and for all.
And yes, this is susceptible to tactical voting still. However, at this point anyone trying to pull that one off will be quite easy to spot, given that their voting order shouldn't have changed from the last vote, or even the first vote (if it did legitimately change, then the person will have a lot of explaining to do to convince the others of that).
Of course it is. And that's pretty much how things will go. The vote only determines the default for Linux (others are undefined, and rightfully so, no need to forcibly make the porters use a system if they don't want to).
Originally Posted by developer
The real question is how to define the direction in terms of what packages should or should not depend on and accept what patches and maintain what configurations. But it's not really related to the init question itself, it was tacked on to it by Jackson, out of fear for facts on the ground (which is rather hypocritical as it assumes bad faith). Having the advice portion be a separate vote just makes a lot of sense, both in terms of counting votes and in terms of procedure (nobody asked the TC about the direction or package dependencies, not directly anyway, once again it was Jackson's idea).
But where does that leave the Hurd port? From what I understand the size argument does not seem to hold water with the CTTE when deciding what to do and there is a desire to not leave any port high and dry.
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
OK, thanks for clarifying it.
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
Given that GNOME will depend on systemd, and Debian Linux's default desktop environment is GNOME, isn't it obvious that systemd is better to become the default init system for Debian Linux (even in the case they change their default desktop environment)?
Last edited by developer; 02-08-2014 at 06:04 PM.
I've used Debian for some period of time after 3.1 release. Moving away from this crap was a really good decision. Debian is not about community, it's not about technical things - it's about flamewars. Now they have a good topic and I think that they will be discussing it until next release instead of working on good integration, rewriting init scripts that was not rewriten for other distros etc.
And that's pretty much game. systemd wins unless someone somehow manages to convince someone to change the votes (which, considering how many objections Langasek has received, is extremely unlikely to happen).
It leaves them with an option to adopt dmd, or stay with sysvinit, or adopt OpenRC, or use a single /etc/rc script, or anything else the porters deem best. But the porters know best what will work on their ports.
Originally Posted by asabjorn