Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> writes: > I'm confused, when I hear you say that this risk is unique to the > systemd option and not shared by other options. I would understand that > statement if we thought we could avoid systemd entirely. It sounds like > we may be able to avoid systemd as pid 1 but systemd is very likely to > play an important role in the Debian desktop storpy even if we adopt > another pid 1.
> It seems like if systemd starts depending on a new kernel feature then > it might well need that feature even when not running as pid 1. > So, when evaluating the opportunity costs of this risk in the pid 1 > debate it seems like there are two important mitigating circumstances: > * The extent to which upstream will provide stability, reducing the risk > * The extent to which we cannot avoid the risk even if we choose another > pid 1, reducing the portion of the cost of this risk properly in-scope > for this bug. > I understand some systems may not need systemd if we choose one of the > other options. However saying "if you installed Gnome you cannot > upgrade," seems like a fairly unfortunate statement. > At some level, we also need to be community players. Since upgrade > stability is important to us, we should advocate for it in open-source > projects that we depend on. On the flip side, if enough of the rest of > the community after having carefully considered our arguments decides > that our desire for stability is too expensive, perhaps we need to > reconsider our position. I hope we don't need to do that, but sometimes > when enough of the rest of the world disagrees with you, you need to > move on. +1 to all of this. Sam expresses here roughly what I've been trying to express, but much better than I have managed to express it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
