On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:34:19 -0600 goli...@devuan.org wrote: > On 2019-11-24 19:23, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:55:46 +0100 > > Denis Roio <jaro...@dyne.org> wrote: > > > >> At last, please, do not consider Devuan as an alternative solution > >> which will survive any outcome of this vote. > >> > >> Because I'm sure Devuan will not survive without Debian's help. > > > > Some time in 2015, I remember hearing the VUAs saying that Devuan > > would be a modification of Debian for some time, but would > > eventually become an independent distro of its own, to prevent a > > crisis like this one. How far is Devuan from being its own distro? > > > >> Devuan is much, much smaller than Debian in resources, people and > >> infrastructure, > > > > Take a look at how the Void Linux project does things. They have > > some kind of software machine that cranks out rolling release > > updates, despite the fact that they have very few developers or > > maintainers. I'm pretty sure Devuan could provide similar > > automation for a version based release. > > > >> and despite our efforts were useful to both, the > >> Debian project has done very little to help us so far. > > > > I expected this. From my viewpoint, and others' may vary, the > > events of 2014 showed Debian's constitution to be defective, their > > decision processes to be kangaroo courts, and for whatever reason > > they seem indebted to the Redhat/FreeDesktop axis. Long run, they > > probably can't be a long term partner or resource. > > > > [snip] > > > >> If the resolution nr.4 proposed by Ian Jackson will not pass, > >> Devuan will die. > > > > From my reading of https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 , it > > seems to me that Proposal E is best, D is second best, with A 3rd > > best: Each of them at least as good as what we have now. Proposal C > > should trigger a separation from Debian, of course, and proposal B > > is worrying. > > > > Three of the five are no worse than we have now, and one of them (E) > > represents a reversal of systemd's encroachment. > > > > I wrote to Ian Jackson earlier today describing my views on the > > subject. I'm not a Debian user nor dev nor maintainer, so I think > > that's the best I can do. Perhaps everybody should *nicely* write > > Ian: Remember, he's our friend, and if he'd succeeded in the 2014 > > GR, there would have been no need for Devuan. > > > > SteveT > > > > Note that there is now a 5th option: > > Proposal E Proposer > > Dmitry Bogatov [kact...@debian.org] [text of latest proposal] > Proposal E Seconds > > Ian Jackson [i...@debian.org] [mail] > Matthew Vernon [matt...@debian.org] [mail] > Jonathan Carter [j...@debian.org] [mail] > Kyle Robbertze [paddatrap...@debian.org] [mail] > Axel Beckert [a...@debian.org] [mail] > Brian Gupta [bgu...@debian.org] [mail] > Simon Richter [s...@debian.org] [mail] > > Proposal E > Choice 5: Init diversity is Required > > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd > continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with > pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work > exclusively with systemd and no support for running without systemd > is available. > > Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work > exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide, > and/or will not accept, an init script. > > golinux
Yes! That's the one that rolls back the systemd encroachment, and I'm cheering for that one. SteveT Steve Litt November 2019 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting Second edition http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
