On 2019-11-24 19:23, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:55:46 +0100
> Denis Roio <jaromil@???> wrote:
>
>> At last, please, do not consider Devuan as an alternative solution
>> which will survive any outcome of this vote.
>>
>> Because I'm sure Devuan will not survive without Debian's help.
>
> Some time in 2015, I remember hearing the VUAs saying that Devuan would
> be a modification of Debian for some time, but would eventually become
> an independent distro of its own, to prevent a crisis like this one.
> How far is Devuan from being its own distro?
>
>> Devuan is much, much smaller than Debian in resources, people and
>> infrastructure,
>
> Take a look at how the Void Linux project does things. They have some
> kind of software machine that cranks out rolling release updates,
> despite the fact that they have very few developers or maintainers. I'm
> pretty sure Devuan could provide similar automation for a version based
> release.
>
>> and despite our efforts were useful to both, the
>> Debian project has done very little to help us so far.
>
> I expected this. From my viewpoint, and others' may vary, the events of
> 2014 showed Debian's constitution to be defective, their decision
> processes to be kangaroo courts, and for whatever reason they seem
> indebted to the Redhat/FreeDesktop axis. Long run, they probably can't
> be a long term partner or resource.
>
> [snip]
>
>> If the resolution nr.4 proposed by Ian Jackson will not pass,
>> Devuan will die.
>
> From my reading of https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 , it seems
> to me that Proposal E is best, D is second best, with A 3rd best: Each
> of them at least as good as what we have now. Proposal C should trigger
> a separation from Debian, of course, and proposal B is worrying.
>
> Three of the five are no worse than we have now, and one of them (E)
> represents a reversal of systemd's encroachment.
>
> I wrote to Ian Jackson earlier today describing my views on the
> subject. I'm not a Debian user nor dev nor maintainer, so I think
> that's the best I can do. Perhaps everybody should *nicely* write Ian:
> Remember, he's our friend, and if he'd succeeded in the 2014 GR, there
> would have been no need for Devuan.
>
> SteveT
>

Note that there is now a 5th option:

Proposal E Proposer

Dmitry Bogatov [kaction@???] [text of latest proposal]
Proposal E Seconds

     Ian Jackson [iwj@???] [mail]
     Matthew Vernon [matthew@???] [mail]
     Jonathan Carter [jcc@???] [mail]
     Kyle Robbertze [paddatrapper@???] [mail]
     Axel Beckert [abe@???] [mail]
     Brian Gupta [bgupta@???] [mail]
     Simon Richter [sjr@???] [mail]

Proposal E
Choice 5: Init diversity is Required

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively
with systemd and no support for running without systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
and/or will not accept, an init script.

golinux