Debian Init System Discussion Is Still Unsettled

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • interested
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2007
    • 321

    #31
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    Why are these the only options? What about, say, launchd (the "original" systemd)?
    While "launchd" just isn't a real choice for Debian Linux-Jessie, it could in principle be a contender along OpenRC for Hurd/kFreebsd, since they seem to have to use sysvinit for the Jessie release anyway because no other alternative have any kind of maturity on these platforms.

    Unfortunately, many of those saying how important it is for Debian to have one single init-system for all platforms, are actually just systemd detractors that don't care one bit about what the porters on those two platforms wants or need. So they may end up getting Upstart dictated to them whether they like or not.

    Comment

    • saulo
      Junior Member
      • Dec 2013
      • 38

      #32
      Systemd was designed exclusively for the Linux kernel and now Debian what to use it and support different kernels. There is just one solution systemd for Linux and something else for the others.

      Why they think upstart is an alternative? They will not even use it under this name, if choose upstart needs to be forked and renamed and maintained separated from Ubuntu upstart. So why the hell is upstart an alternative?

      Why they want just 1 Debian with multiple kernels instead of multiple Debian with specific kernel ?

      Comment

      • Vim_User
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2013
        • 1116

        #33
        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        Upstart -- Only really used by one distro (and its Derivs), some Devs have problems with CLA, big change
        Why do people always forget about ChromeOS, a distro that is now successful in the laptop/netbook market, more than any other Linux distribution?

        Comment

        • chrisb
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2013
          • 662

          #34
          Originally posted by DeeK View Post
          You're forgetting Debian jessie, for a stable bleeding edge distribution. Never mind that you can also use pinning with Debian apt, to keep your base system as the stable distribution, while cherry-picking packages from testing, unstable, and experimental for installation. Works beautifully, and is a great way to keep your system rock stable, while enjoying the latest versions of whatever you need. That's something Fedora cannot do, from my knowledge.
          Jessie isn't stable, it's still in testing, and it isn't even maintained by the security team. Mixing distributions rarely works well, as soon as you have two executables that depend on a particular library which has a non-backwards compatible change then once of the executables will break.

          Comment

          • gens
            Senior Member
            • May 2012
            • 1158

            #35
            Originally posted by interested View Post
            The weird thing about this is, that Ian Jackson, who protested that the original voting proposition didn't have a clause about how a GR could overturn the technical committee with a simple majority, now a making counter proposals without any trace of such clause.

            Another crazy thing is, that instead of breaking the complex questions down into simple simple questions, resolving one problem at a time like chairman Bdale suggested, they now have an extremely complicated ballot, wide open for different interpretations.
            as it should be
            systemd is invasive, and there is a question if they want to have other packages that depend on it
            depend.. on an init system.. init system is what the original ballot was for

            Comment

            • Scimmia
              Senior Member
              • Jun 2013
              • 138

              #36
              Originally posted by interested View Post
              OTOH, Ian's voting suggestion is perfect for splitting votes, and letting sub-questions ride along the main question; eg. in order not to loose the vote, all the systemd proponents would have to vote "systemd and mandatory support for multiple init-systems", even though 3 out of 4 really wanted a single default init-system with voluntary support for other systems.
              With all of his blustering and attitude so far, I think you're pretty much nailed it. His side is losing so he's using the procedure to try to stack it back in his favor. Same with the whole GR override, it's his second shot.

              Comment

              • Olosta
                Junior Member
                • Nov 2013
                • 12

                #37
                Originally posted by interested View Post

                If they had broken down the questions into smaller portions, they could have much easier ballots like:
                1. Which init system as default for Linux-Jessie
                2. Should Linux Jessie support more than one init system or not
                3. If more than one init system, should the support be voluntary or mandatory
                I think we're past 1 and 2, not formally but only a switch from Don would make systemd lose at this point. I didn't see any member speaking against 2 (maybe Steve at the very begining).

                3 is really the meat of the argument now, is it OK for a package to actually depend on one particular init as PID1 even indirectly. And this decision is really the most important because if the answer is no, all this drama was only for the default setting of a multiple choice question in the installer, all other issues are unresolved. If it yes some integration will probably go forward and it will be a challenge to other inits to keep pace.

                Comment

                • eidolon
                  Senior Member
                  • Mar 2013
                  • 270

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                  Upstart -- Only really used by one distro (and its Derivs), some Devs have problems with CLA, big change
                  Why do people always forget about ChromeOS, a distro that is now successful in the laptop/netbook market, more than any other Linux distribution?
                  He did mention derivatives. While I don't consider Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols an authority, if the article "The secret origins of Google's Chrome OS" is to be accepted without qualification, "the first builds of Chrome OS had Ubuntu as its foundation". Upstart could be seen as an artifact of Chrome OS's beginnings, despite Chrome OS's evolution away from those beginnings (i.e. even though Chrome OS wouldn't be classified as an Ubuntu derivative as it exists today). That being said, if Google sees Upstart as the best choice technically or politically moving forward (which is likely the case as they continue to use it), I for one have no issue with that.

                  Any ctte member conflict of interest issues aside, if the TC decides Upstart is what truly would make for the best default for the Debian Project, for Linux and/or kFreeBSD, I would accept that decision, despite the fact that I don't personally agree with it.
                  Last edited by eidolon; 29 January 2014, 02:55 AM.

                  Comment

                  • flux242
                    Phoronix Member
                    • Jan 2014
                    • 67

                    #39
                    Statements like - 'I switched to the XXX distro because of systemd' are really funny. Why an end user should care what init system is used? And an end user doesn't have Debian on his Desktop anyway.

                    Comment

                    • Vim_User
                      Senior Member
                      • Jan 2013
                      • 1116

                      #40
                      Originally posted by eidolon View Post
                      He did mention derivatives. While I don't consider Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols an authority, if the article "The secret origins of Google's Chrome OS" is to be accepted without qualification, "the first builds of Chrome OS had Ubuntu as its foundation". Upstart could be seen as an artifact of Chrome OS's beginnings, despite Chrome OS's evolution away from those beginnings (i.e. even though Chrome OS wouldn't be classified as an Ubuntu derivative as it exists today).
                      Its evolution has come so far that ChromeOS since 2010 is based on Gentoo, I would be surprised if after four years there are still leftovers from Ubuntu.

                      Any ctte member conflict of interest issues aside, if the TC decides Upstart is what truly would make for the best default for the Debian Project, for Linux and/or kFreeBSD, I would accept that decision, despite the fact that I don't personally agree with it.
                      It is not that we have any say in it, so accepting that decision is the only thing one can do. But as a Debian user (I use it on my servers) I have to evaluate after that decision if Debian is still the OS I want to run my servers with. For me personally systemd is not acceptable on any of my systems, so if they decide in favor of systemd I will likely migrate my servers to something without systemd. Happily Debians release cycles are pretty long, so that I don't have to rush the migration.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X