On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:34:19 -0600
golinux@??? wrote:
> 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
Yes! That's the one that rolls back the systemd encroachment, and I'm
cheering for that one.
SteveT
Steve Litt
November 2019 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical
Troubleshooting Second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
::
Re: [DNG] Devuan cannot exist witho…
