Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> writes: > But that's not the problem. The issue is that there's no > outcome, and that it's demotivating. If I read others that > what we want to work on isn't a good idea, I will simply > not work on that, and external contributors will run away.
I agree with this. The init system discussion has gone on long after it was useful, and instead of discussing the matter we should be working on implementing what we want to implement. As an example, if you want to see OpenRC in Debian, make it work and upload it. If someone else wants to see systemd in Debian they can make it work and upload it (as has been done). I think the only technical decision that needs to be made at this point is removing the Essential mark from sysvinit. The consensus for that should be somewhat more reachable, even if the technical implementation may have some open questions. In addition to that it would be nice if everyone could agree to not work against a certain init implementation (for example by refusing to include the startup file for that init when someone else has written one and submited it as a wishlist bug). We should however not demand that people work on writing startup files for init systems they don't care about. We can return to the "which init is default" discussion when we have multiple init systems fully supported, and when we are not close to freezing. -- Arto Jantunen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vck5g0su....@kirika.int.wmdata.fi
