Noel Torres wrote:
> On Sunday, 30 de November de 2014 14:42:43 Miles Fidelman escribió:
>> Franco Lanza wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:54:23PM +0000, Noel Torres wrote:
>>>> Do not look at me so fiercy.
>>>>
>>>> For me Devuan is about freedom. Specifically users' freedom. And with
>>>> init freedom as a starting point.
>>> As already known, we are NOT against systemd. We are pro-freedom.
>>> Systemd WILL BE supported in devuan. Just not in the same manner as it
>>> is in debian where it eat whole system.
>> That seems like a rather dangerous technical choice, in that systemd
>> (or, more precisely, its developers) seem hell-bent on engulfing more
>> and more functionality into systemd, and related code - to the extent of
>> writing publicly about their goals to radically change, engulf, and
>> devour Linux as we know it (that's only a mild exaggeration - I suggest
>> folks actually read Lennart Poettering's blog, at
>> http://0pointer.net/blog/).
>>
>> Between its monolithic nature, changing API's (making things like
>> systemd-shim a time-sink to maintain), and radical divergence from
>> traditional Unix design philosophy, supporting systemd in Devuan might
>> be a very dangerous choice. You know, the whole "camel's nose under the
>> tent...." thing.
> Letting it engulf Devuan as it has engulfed Debian would be dangerous as you
> fear. Simply providing it as an option would be not.

That would be true, IF, it wasn't such an amorphous beast that keeps
engulfing more and more functionality, with a highly inter-twined
collection of dependencies. The problem is that systemd isn't "just an
init system" - it now includes udev, and logging, etc., etc., etc.

> If we ensure all packages (excepting specific ones) are init-system agnostic
> will avoid the scenario you depict.

I think that what we need is a strong policy that excludes software (or
at least system-level software/utilities/services) based on design
principles. I.e., let's actually include "The Unix Philosophy," or
something like it, as policy for Devuan. You know "make each program do
one thing well," and so forth. I expect that pretty much all of the
systemd ecosystem would not make the cut, if subjected to even modest
design review based on a serious set of architectural principles.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure that systemd, et. al., don't really conform
to current Debian Policy - but that will probably be resolved by
changing Debian Policy, not enforcing it.)

Miles Fidelman






--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra