Franco Lanza wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 03:37:13PM +0000, Noel Torres wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> If we ensure all packages (excepting specific ones) are init-system agnostic
>> will avoid the scenario you depict.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Noel
>> er Envite
> I agree, it will be optional, and only when we can configure it as
> non-intrusive. And of course, only if we can. If we cannote get it to
> run without hijack whole system, we will no support it anymore.
>

And that, of course, is the trick. And it's as much an organizational
question as anything else - how do we draw a strong line in the sand?
How do we translate:
"only when we can configure it as non-intrusive,"
"only if we can (configure it as non-intrusive),"
"(only if we can get it to run) without hijack(ing) the whole system"

into:
a) clear statements to upstream that don't provide wiggle room (c.f.,
all of Poettering's writings about why systemd is just fine and everyone
else is wrong)
b) clear enforcement (it's an option, not a default, if it keeps getting
pulled in as a dependency) - along the lines of Linus' now-famous rant:
"Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the
code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the
problems you cause. Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be
merging any code from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is
fixed."

We're in this mess because the Debian Technical Committee didn't "hold
the line" to defend Linux as we know it. Let's be careful that Devuan
doesn't get drawn into that trap. Otherwise, what's the point?

--- parenthetical, historical, comment ----

When I read writings like
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
(the URL says it all) from the self-described "systemd cabal" (c.f. the
same URL), I am reminded of what Henry Kissinger, of all people, wrote
in his graduate thesis in reference to the French Revolution: "It is the
essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its
convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to
their ultimate conclusion.” He goes on to discuss the "problems
confronting a heretofore stable diplomatic system when it is faced with
a "revolutionary power" -- a power that does not accept that system's
legitimacy." (2nd quote is from Paul Krugman in "The Great Unraveling" -
about politics and economics, but a title that seems all to relevant to
what's happening in the Linux world right now).

Map
Linux, Debian, and Debian derivatives -> "heretofore stable diplomatic
system"
"systemd cabal" -> "revolutionary power" that "does not accept the
system's legitimacy"
and it sure looks like we get a "Great Unraveling"

Or in the words of Leonard McCoy, "Spock, I've found that evil usually
triumphs unless good is very, very careful."

Let's be very, very careful here, folks.

Miles Fidelman









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