Voting Proposed For Debian Jessie's Init System

[Scimmia]

Yeah, a coincidence for sure.
In any case, the Bdale vote counts as two, because he is the chairman.
So,
[systemd x2] chairman Bdale Garbee
[systemd] member Russ Allbery
[systemd] member Don Armstrong
[Upstart] member Andreas Barth
[Upstart] member Ian Jackson
[Upstart] member Steve Langasek
[systemd] member Keith Packard
[Upstart] member Colin Watson

Looks like 5-4 in favor of systemd, provided someone doesn't change his mind from the intention vote expressed before.

Ah, but the way the question is phrased, I could see either Armstrong or Barth going for either options 4 or 5. This is about what should happen immediately, not which direction to head.

[Annabel]

I'm wondering what will happen to Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD if they switch to systemd

at least upstart would be easier to port and they said that they will accept patches (source: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/op...s/systemd.html ``<azeem>Steve said he would happily take porting patches'')

[ihatemichael]

I'm wondering what will happen to Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD if they switch to systemd

at least upstart would be easier to port and they said that they will accept patches (source: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/op...s/systemd.html ``<azeem>Steve said he would happily take porting patches'')

Couldn't they just stick to sysvinit? It's not like there aren't other differences across them already.

[Anarchy]

Lennart Poettering and Kay Sievers have already answered this. The core design of Upstart is wrong, and even if it wasn't, there's still Canonical's CLA.
Ubuntu is also only the most used distro on desktop systems.

And it took them FOUR years to say so? Why didn't they try to influence its development? Raise their concerns? And please don't hide behind the CLA. It is a simple stupid document that can be renegotiated between the companies and individuals willing to contribute since the start system is fundamental part of the OS. In the worst case scenario said individuals and companies can fork the original project and rename it to something else. Problem solved.

From my perspective this is another attempt to derail one company's effort and replace it with something own. It's not like it hasn't happened before. The latest upstart vs. systemd is nothing new on that front.

[finalzone]

And it took them FOUR years to say so? Why didn't they try to influence its development? Raise their concerns? And please don't hide behind the CLA. It is a simple stupid document that can be renegotiated between the companies and individuals willing to contribute since the start system is fundamental part of the OS. In the worst case scenario said individuals and companies can fork the original project and rename it to something else. Problem solved.

It has been said for years but some people refused to listen while being too busy pursuing their crusade against any project involving Poettering and their owitn blind hate against systemd without even trying .

[You-]

Why not have OpenRC for compatibility with older scripts? Or would that even work?

SystemD and Upstart both have sysV compatribility.

However OpenRC puts its "runscripts" in the exact same location as a sysV initscript. You can either have the initscript (compatibility with all) or runscript (only compatible with OpenRC).

For your proposal to work, OpenRC needs to move the location of its runscripts as that hinders compatibility.

[gens]

afaik openRC is an evolution of sysvinit
gives all those new shiny "features" without being complex and invasive

at least that's what i understand

and from what i have read most of debian tech committee didn't know much about it

[You-]

afaik openRC is an evolution of sysvinit
gives all those new shiny "features" without being complex and invasive

at least that's what i understand

and that is the normal line from the OpenRC advocates.

and from what i have read most of debian tech committee didn't know much about it

From what I read, what they did know about it didn't solve the problems they wanted an init system to solve.

There was a minor subthread about daemon startup and monitoring and the tech committee members didn't like how it did such a thing. They also had concerns with using "monit" as the sole monitoring method. I would also add that there was no solution for logind in the openRC world, but that also extends to Upstart.

(Then there is the unadressed issue of runscripts replacing initscripts and therefore destroying backwards compatibility, but that is minor.)

Reading between the lines both Gnome and KDE by the time of Jessie will be requiring Logind and while this isnt being addressed explicitly, it is an issue for other init systems - their "easy" alternative is to keep consolekit working, but no maintainers have stepped up to the plate in that regard (despite initial suggestions that a maintainer from Canonical was going to take it over).

[gens]

There was a minor subthread about daemon startup and monitoring and the tech committee members didn't like how it did such a thing. They also had concerns with using "monit" as the sole monitoring method. I would also add that there was no solution for logind in the openRC world, but that also extends to Upstart.

maybe you can explain to me
what the f* does user space desktop/user/seat/monitoring/thing have to do with how the system loads modules and starts system daemons

and don't we already have user groups, SUID and the likes to regulate user permissions, regardless of what's underneath

i'm no admin but mine so console-kit and the likes confuse me
don't we already have all that in the kernel/filesystem ?

[Gusar]

And please don't hide behind the CLA. It is a simple stupid document that can be renegotiated between the companies and individuals willing to contribute since the start system is fundamental part of the OS.

You think they haven't tried? Red Hat uses upstart in RHEL6 (well, it's a frankenmonster of a little bit of upstart and a whole lot of init scripts, so saying "uses upstart" is a bit misleading). They tried to negotiate with Canonical. They weren't successful: https://plus.google.com/108087225644...ts/C3chC26khpq

In the worst case scenario said individuals and companies can fork the original project and rename it to something else. Problem solved.

Yeah, it's called systemd. If there was no CLA, Lennart and Kay would've morphed upstart into something that's very much like systemd is today. The very creator of upstart (Scott James Remnant) said so in the comments of that google+ post I linked above.

From my perspective this is another attempt to derail one company's effort and replace it with something own.

Canonical "derailed" themselves here. They created a barrier to contribution and didn't react when another company tried to tell them that the barrier is too high.