On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 08:37:33AM -0600, rhys wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Right now, the model we have is "some packages use the empty /etc model,
> > > some packages install commented-out defaults, and there's no
> > > consistency". I'd love to move to the model of "all packages use
> > > whichever model the sysadmin prefers".
>
> > Speaking as a sysadmin, I MUST ACCEPT the fact that I don't write this
> > code. This is not my code. I can't always have my way. If the developer
> > for a package decides that a different way is best for their package, so be
> > it.
>
> Debian is not a distribution that says "whatever upstream does is always
> right". We have Debian Policy for a reason, and part of the point of a
> distribution is to ensure packages meet that policy, providing uniform
> behavior for sysadmins. Policies don't change overnight, but over time
> we can steer in a general direction.
Debian is also a distribution which is worked on by volunteers, as
opposed to some distribution which employs wage slaves who have to do
whatever a product manager dictates.
So a question we have to ask ourselves is "is this worth our volunteer
bandwidth"? And is it a good thing to have a Debian Policy that will
be wildly ignored, because no one has a time to make non-upstream
compliant changes (some of which might require making semantic changes
in how config files work --- example: ntp server specification has
mentioned upthread --- assuming that making a semantic change to a
config file not updated by upstream is a good thing, which I as an
upstream maintainer have a rather strong and violent reaction to with
respect to uppity distributions)?
Is having a single, unitary config file semantics a nice thing? Sure;
my having enough cash that I can work on whatever I want, and fund
teams to do whatever I want, as opposed to what my employer considers
important would also be "a nice thing". But we can't always have
everything that we want. Most of us are privileged enough to have
anything we want; but most of us also don't have enough resources to
have *everything* that we want.
- Ted
