On 02/14/2015 06:59 PM, Luke Leighton wrote: > > what i wrote makes the following things very clear: > > 1) your debian system will not be screwed up or compromised by using > devuan. you will also not lose any functionality or packages. > *** I guess that really depends on the case: as mentioned earlier in this list, if you're using Gnome the transition may be more difficult. Regarding functionality, I can foresee, given the number of packages that didn't make into Debian Jessie from Wheezy, it might actually be better in Devuan than in Debian. In any case, I expect the Devuan community will provide thorough testing, debugging, and support for edge cases that may appear from replacing packages whose dependency chain heavily relies on systemd.
> 2) we understand the difficulty of maintaining an entire distro. > we implicitly understand that we will not get to 1,000 maintainers > in the immediate future, so we are being realistic and will not > be doing a complete fork. it's too much effort for us, and we > recognise that you probably wouldn't trust us (i.e. wouldn't > even want to *try* upgrading to devuan) if we created one. > *** The original version seems more appropriate to me: it does not justify being a small team to begin with, but sets clear and reasonable goals and baby steps that demonstrate the sanity of the approach rather than asking for trust. > 3) we're restricting the scope of what we're doing to a few key > strategic packages, and we're going to make it easy for you to > remove systemd. that's our core focus. > *** Again, that's part of how the VUA implement their strategy. They say it clearly enough, and that's for the *initial phase*. The version you wrote, that I reported as Issue #8, wants to tell a different story than what has been told so far. The project description clearly states that: + *removing mandatory dependencies on systemd* is the primary goal + in order to reach that goal *Devuan will pin some packages on top of Debian repositories* + once that goal is reached, and users have a choice, then Devuan will consider other changes. At which point, I would say that it depends on Debian whether Devuan remains compatible or not. Devuan will have made it possible for Debian to revert the decision of using systemd as the default init system. It is unlikely to happen, for a variety of reasons. In any case, Devuan will have to continue to exist because having systemd as default init in Debian Jessie *will* influence how developers consider what they can do: those with a consciousness and a vetted interest in supporting universality (including legacy or non-mainstream hardware) will go for Devuan, while others will happily write systemd-dependent code. There's a remote possibility that systemd will become universal and stable, or that it will run with a higher PID. Until then, it seems to me that Devuan will remain the closest available free software distribution to Debian Wheezy. >From what I've read so far, I can feel a strong consensus towards independence. That doesn't mean incompatibility. It would have been so much easier if Debian had decided to implement the systemd init as a Debian Blend. But we're far beyond that situation: this is a fork. > > with a small (busy) team, you are stuck in the middle between a rock > and a hard place. > *** You can move a small team away from that situation with no casualties. A bigger team will undoubtedly leave some behind. See Debian. > on one hand you need to keep the alternative packages fully up-to-date: > even *one day* late means that people will have a system which becomes > unuseable due to version-bumps from debian. > *** With apt-pinning, you can delay such upgrades. If a package becomes broken due to a systemd dependency, it will be added to the Devuan package repository for fixing. Once there, it will live happily. Surely the transition may be hairy for some packages, but there's no reason why it should happen a lot. If it does, it's a sign that Debian is poetterizing, so it will be a good long term indicator of whether Devuan and Debian will remain compatible. That said, the current setup of `devuan-sdk` takes into account the possibility that Debian upstream may become unusable, and allows bypassing Debian to package directly from upstream. This defensive mechanism will allow for example to revert to sanity where Debian maintainers introduce dependencies on systemd where upstream does not, or to include packages from Debian Wheezy that missed Debian Jessie. > and on the other hand you have to consider doing a complete total fork > of debian, with all that that implies > *** You're right. As the VUA said: "We are aware of how huge effort, time and blood is needed to maintain a so huge distro like debian is, so, initially, it will NOT be a complete fork". The more successful the first phase, the more reachable the scope of a complete fork. Keeping the heads cool and focused is critical, and not rush away without a solid foundation. > can i recommend that you discuss amongst yourselves within the devuan > team as to precisely and exactly what the direction is? can we have > a consensus from the team as to whether everyone understands fully the > scope of the project, outlines a clear roadmap (and agrees to it), and > so on? > > and once that is agreed can i suggest updating the web site to make > that consensus absolutely clear? > *** https://git.devuan.org/devuan/devuan-project/issues/9 Thank you! == hk -- _ _ We are free to share code and we code to share freedom (_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/ _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
