Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Debian General Resolution to Prevent Init System Coupling Fails to Pass

posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-hope-we-don't-regret-this dept.

novak writes:

Ian Jackson's general resolution to prevent init system coupling has failed to pass, the majority vote deciding that the resolution is unnecessary. This means that not only will Debian's default init be systemd, but packages will not be required to support other init systems. Presumably, this means that using other init systems on Debian (without using systemd as a base) will not be possible without major workarounds, or possibly at all. It also leaves the future of Debian projects such as kFreeBSD unclear, as systemd is linux specific.

The vote results can be found here

The winners are:

Option 4 "General Resolution is not required"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Debian General Resolution to Prevent Init System Coupling Fails to Pass | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 179 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:05PM

    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:05PM (#117826) Journal
    "I'm still torn on the whole thing, honestly. systemd is maturing and working better, which is good. I don't really have a good technical argument for or against it. It just breaks with the historic philosophy of doing one small thing well, and chaining together the tools, which is why I'm upset about it."

    You need to think on this more clearly. That historical philosophy is either important and should be followed for technical reasons (which I believe to be correct) or else it's not relevant at all here.

    You do one thing and do it well, because it's possible to verify a simple tool with a clearly defined role actually does what it's supposed to do, and not more, and doing that is the key to keeping a sane system that works as it should.

    You avoid designing monsters like systemd not for some disconnected 'philosophical' reason but because decades of experience show that monsters like that are impossible to do right. They are far too complicated to verify - too much code and too many code-paths. Too many pieces of it that will rarely be executed, where bugs can sit for years without being noticed.

    If systemd is still in use in 10 years, they will just be beginning to find the bugs they are writing today.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:57AM

    by cafebabe (894) on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:57AM (#117985) Journal

    You do one thing and do it well, because it's possible to verify a simple tool with a clearly defined role actually does what it's supposed to do, and not more, and doing that is the key to keeping a sane system that works as it should.

    As fairly well defined and protocol specific examples, some of problems in bind and Apache httpd have occurred due to the conflated role of serving authoritative data and caching data from other servers. Neither of these implementations are doing one thing well.

    --
    1702845791×2