Vincent Danjean <vdanjean...@free.fr> writes: > I'm persuaded that ignoring this issue will lead to an unmaintanable > Debian distribution on plateforms that do not support systemd in the > middle/long term. But, perhaps, it is what the project wants. > Enrico is proposing something else. I'm not sure if his proposal is > good and doable (ie with enough support from various parties and > manpower). > I'm not pleased at all with arguments to stop this discussion nor > with arguments that try to deny the issue. I do not know what can > really be done to solve the issue.
To be clear, I would be very happy to have the above conversation. Figuring out portability is important to the project, and we should be constantly looking for good ways to maintain and improve our portability, particularly given that this was the primary downside of the systemd decision we took (and we knew that when we took it). This is an important discussion, and I don't want to shut it down. What I want to shut down is iteration N of "you all are looking at this problem in the wrong way and if you would just look at it my way, it will be immediately obvious that you're wrong." Or "systemd is obviously not the correct architecture, so let's get together and design a better one as a project." People have been trying both of those approaches continuously since the original discussion, and, to be quite frank, they no longer fill me with a desire to collaborate. Rather the opposite; it's very hard to resist the (I believe incorrect, but still very human) reaction of "well, I did care about the use cases systemd doesn't support well, but since everyone who talks about those use cases seems way more interested in lecturing me and attacking me than solving technical problems, let me go lower this on my personal priority list even farther." I think there's a lot of room here for technical discussions focused on *specific* technical problems or possible solutions, as opposed to broad, sweeping generalities about "open standards" (aimed at a fully open-source project with very comprehensive documentation!) and "actual root problems" that don't spell out (a) what's wrong with the current state, (b) how we propose to fix it, and (c) at least some vague start at an actionable plan to achieve that. Or that aren't at least *trying* to spell out those things. One thing that would help considerably would be to have a clear set of requirements from the non-Linux ports in what they actually want from the rest of the archive in this area (assuming they are seeing real portability problems in the current state). Specifically, a constructive list: "please support this," as opposed to "please don't support that." Then we can start diving into the details of improving integration code and build helpers to fix the problems they're seeing, with some concrete feedback on whether we're getting it right or wrong. I think this would be more motivating than vague statements about portability issues that aren't actionable. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
