Hello:

On 30 Dec 2023 at 22:33, tito via Dng wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 07:25:08 -0300
> altoid via Dng <dng@???> wrote:

--- snip --->

I would be very obliged if top post / full quote were avoided.
I am extremely distracted by it, it clouds my already poor judgement.
Thank you. 8^)

<--- snip ---

> ... fully agree with you ...
> ... what this integral and systematic solution could be.
Something like the script I mentioned having been posted here at DNG
or Dev1, but I have not had the time to look for it.

> ... common service description files for all alternative init ...
I am in all probability the *wrong* person to ask about this.

Like I have noted previously, I am not a coder/programmer/maintainer.
ie: I lack the skills needed to be able to opine as to whether init
software is the right/best/more convenient/faster/most flexible, etc.

But I am well aware of the dire situation Devuan is in.
ie: lack of both resources *and* time to find a way out of the pickle
Devuan and derivatives are in, deeper and deeper as time goes by.

That said, as a professional with 30+ years work in, among other
things, the administration of resources, it seems to me that to start
off looking for an *all abarcative* solution like the one you propose
is likely to fail more than anything due to the amount of work needed
vis a vis finding a solution for just *one* init system.

In my opinion, the best course of action would be to take what is,
for better or for worse and with all its flaws (?) the most widely
used init software in the non-systemd ecosystem and make every effort
to shield it from the systemd pustch.

Unless I am mistaken (probably I am) that would be sysvinit.

> ... If I understand It correctly one part of init ...
I'm truly sorry but I really don't have much of a clue about all that
follows.

> ... viable solution to me seems to be to use systemd's own ...
Which is exactly what Devuan has done to survive, up to now.

Forking from Debian, ridding it of systemd and taking packages from
the Debian repositories, sanitizing those who needed it and banning
those that could not be used without systemd.

> ... need to find a way to leverage their .service files as a base of our init system.
Exactly.

> ... proposed by some scripts to convert .service files ...
That is what I was refering to, but by *no means* on the fly.

It would have to be a *maintainer only* tool to make properly signed
Devuan repository packages from Debian repository packages.

> ... we will always lag behind to fix breakages ...
I have no issue with that.

I have always been highly distrustful of the 'bleeding edge', both in
hardware and software.

One thing I found very appealing about Debian when I first
encountered it was how the devs took their time to test things and
amke sure whatever was released had no issues.

> ... think we are just resisting progress....
No.
Not by a longshot.

systemd is *not* progress of any kind and cannot be considered as
such.

It does not comply with the most basic philosophy at the heart of the
Linux ecosystem.

It is the tool MS et al have developed to infiltrate and destroy the
Linux ecosystem from within.

Thank you for the effort put forth in your post, I regret I am not
able to 'talk shop' with you.

It happens that my position is only that of the jester pointing out
the obvious, nothing else.

And all this is just my $0.02.

Have a Happy New Year.

Best,

A.