Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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 fnj on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:24PM

    by fnj (1654) on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:24PM (#117707)

    I am quite fond of APT and moving to BSD would be a serious drag

    Re-examine your tenets. I happen to think yum after it matured was far superior to apt, but I had no problem migrating to FreeBSD. FreeBSD's pkg is fine.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:23PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:23PM (#117832) Journal

    Ok, taken under advisement. Still hope debian forks, though. I had really enjoyed how widely supported and easy the distribution has been.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:25PM

    by HiThere (866) on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:25PM (#117878) Journal

    I couldn't find any BSD that would handle a large ext4 filesystem, and I'm reluctant to make that large a change with no way back. So the BSD option seems to be out. I could convert to another file system that both BSD and Linux would handle, but I'm not aware of any that handle large file systems.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday November 20 2014, @12:50AM

      by fnj (1654) on Thursday November 20 2014, @12:50AM (#117923)

      AFAIK there is no single FS that is full read-write portable between linux and BSD except NTFS (NTFS-3g) (but problems with file ownership and modes) and (ugh, hack, spit) FAT. Since ZFSonLinux went full production-ready you can "sort of" add ZFS to that.

      I have no idea why there isn't a full UFS read-write on linux and a full ext2/3/4 read-write on FreeBSD, at least in fuse add-on form. I hate to say it, but not-invented-here seems to be the only reason on both sides.

      Of all of the above, FAT is the only one that is a first-class built-in FS on both sides. And it of course is a non-starter for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which being that it has no concept of file ownership or of file modes beyond trivial things like global read-only.

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:06AM

        by cafebabe (894) on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:06AM (#117990) Journal

        I have no idea why there isn't a full UFS read-write on linux and a full ext2/3/4 read-write on FreeBSD, at least in fuse add-on form. I hate to say it, but not-invented-here seems to be the only reason on both sides.

        There is a perfectly good reference implementation of UFS but it is under the wrong license. Likewise for Ext. This fragmentation of licenses also seems to be (one of many reasons) why GPL systemd was conceived rather than using Apache license launchd. Overall, the fragmentation of licenses (and languages) is causing a large amount of unnecessary work.

        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:03PM

          by fnj (1654) on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:03PM (#118119)

          Yet ZFS has a license that is not compatible with GPL, yet that in no way stopped ZFSonLinux from producing a first-class file system (basically I mean not fuse). So nobody can bring it into a distro, but that doesn't stop a package from being available and any user can just add that package to his own linux installation.