On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:09:46PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:24:39AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:41:53AM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
> > > Do we want to emphasise purely "sans-systemd", or do we want to promote
> > > "freedom of init choice"?
> >
> > The problem with the phrase "freedom of init choice" is that it appears
> > to say that one could choose systemd.
> >
> > We need to be clear that we are promoting freedom by providing
> > alternatives to systemd, and that users that choose systemd can
> > use Debian with our blessing.
>
> I think it could be good to not only leave vestigial systemd support in, but
> also make both code paths working. This would create nice upstreamable
> patches, and dispel any views of being hostile.

That would be good, but I doubt we have the resources to do that.

For one thing, the package dependencies seem to be different with and
without systemd, and the package manager might end up having to deal
with package dependencies that are present or absent depending on the
presence of other packages. I'm not sure there are any efficient
agorithms to resolve the resulting dependency tangle.

-- hendrik