Debian Policy 4.7 Outlines Latest Packaging/System Guidelines

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Debian Policy 4.7 Outlines Latest Packaging/System Guidelines

A new version of the Debian Policy Manual has been published that outlines the policy requirements for Debian around the package archive and various design matters of the platform...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Policy-4.7

[mxan]

Sad to see the further encroachment of IBM / Microsoft systemd and proprietary software upon Debian.

[billyswong]

Sad to see the further encroachment of IBM / Microsoft systemd and proprietary software upon Debian.

If a package installation includes a start/stop of systemd service, it makes total sense to mark the package as depending on systemd. If the installation can differentiate which daemon management tool a computer is running and start/stop accordingly, then it can list the dependency in "A | B" format.

It is proper declaration and documentation, not entrenchment.

[J.King]

Sad to see the further encroachment of IBM / Microsoft systemd and proprietary software upon Debian.

Like it or not, systemd exists, and Debian supports it. This is not systemd encroaching further: it's Debian ensuring that they retain the same level of support after a backwards compatibility mechanism is removed upstream.

[skeevy420]

Like it or not, systemd exists, and Debian supports it. This is not systemd encroaching further: it's Debian ensuring that they retain the same level of support after a backwards compatibility mechanism is removed upstream.

6.3
Packages that automatically start or stop system services must include ``systemd`` units unless the service is only intended for use on systems running alternative init systems. Previously, ``systemd`` also supported init scripts, but that support is being removed.

The fact that they have this line says all one needs to know. Reading between the lines, Debian could be priming themselves to support multiple init systems.

[J.King]

Sad to see the further encroachment of IBM / Microsoft systemd and proprietary software upon Debian.

And as far as proprietary software goes, nothing is changing. Debian is adding proprietary firmware to their package repositories. How much the distinction matters is debatable, but I for one welcome the change, since I can't use any of my computers without said firmware, and that's nothing new.

[spicfoo]

The fact that they have this line says all one needs to know. Reading between the lines, Debian could be priming themselves to support multiple init systems.

Nah. There has been no change in that regard since Debian has always supported multiple init systems. What is changing is that if you are using newer versions of Systemd, LSB legacy init scripts are no longer supported and therefore the packaging guidelines are updated now to reflect that reality. You can still run a script through a service and some services do but the vast majority take advantage of the native features as is.

[SViN]

Sad to see the further encroachment of IBM / Microsoft systemd and proprietary software upon Debian.

debian has been systemd only and has contained non-free software for years now.
what are you on about?

[sophisticles]

This "policy" is exactly the type of thing I am talking about when I say the Linux ecosystem results in half-assed OSes.

The policy is a bunch of nonsense, how exactly is this supposed to help anything?

Want to see what a mess the Debian organization is?

https://wiki.debian.org/FriendsOfDebian

Why do we need more Money?

In order to be able to afford more Debian work meetings (50 per year seems a conservative estimate) Debian needs more money. One can calculate with about 2000-5000USD/€ per work meeting, which would result in an overall sum of up to 250kUSD/€. Work meetings have proven to accelerate Debian development.

Won't This Money Corrupt Debian?

Theoretically that is possible. But it is not likely: Other Projects have not been corrupted by money yet.

Meanwhile it is estimated that they have close to a million dollars in the bank but they don't give a dime to any developer, they are all "volunteers":

https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/10/debian_project_address/

In 2020 Project leader Jonathan Carter called Debian "a bottomless pit if problems".

Why would anyone ever use this software?

[cen1]

This "policy" is exactly the type of thing I am talking about when I say the Linux ecosystem results in half-assed OSes.

The policy is a bunch of nonsense, how exactly is this supposed to help anything?

Want to see what a mess the Debian organization is?

https://wiki.debian.org/FriendsOfDebian

Meanwhile it is estimated that they have close to a million dollars in the bank but they don't give a dime to any developer, they are all "volunteers":

https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/10/debian_project_address/

In 2020 Project leader Jonathan Carter called Debian "a bottomless pit if problems".

Why would anyone ever use this software?

I agree with most of your points but the reality is that even taking all of that into account, Debian is still one of the most stable distros out there, especially for servers and to some extend, desktop. The second or first best would be Ubuntu (a Debian derivative) and then you are into rolling release distros or selling your soul to IBM or the CentOS copycats which have no guarantee they will exist in 10 years.

I think we somehow need to fix the negative inertia in Debian or else we'll end in a bad spot.