Debian Bug report logs - #762194
Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:44:43 +0100

Package: tech-ctte

At the risk of generating confusion due to a duplication of threads:

It appears that the answer to #746578 (libpam-systemd dependency) does
not depend on whether users upgrading should be switched to systemd by
default.  The current state in jessie is that users are switched by
default.  This is controversial.  The Technical Committee should make
a decision about this.

My view is that users should not be automatically switched when
upgrading to jessie.  As I said in my intro to #746578:

This is especially important given the controversy, and our commitment
to support multiple init systems.

This would also be analogous with other similar decisions.  For
example, if the default desktop for jessie remains XFCE, we do not
expect users upgrading from wheezy to have GNOME replaced with XFCE.
If we were to change the default MTA or nameserver or syslogd, we
would not expect to replace the installed MTA or nameserver or syslogd
on existing systems.

There are also of course important practical problems with
automatically switching.  There have been suggestions that these
should be dealt with by automatically detecting problem cases.  But we
do not yet have a coherent design for such an approach, let alone an
implementation.  It is IMO too late in the jessie release cycle for us
to be developing and introducing such a thing.  This is particularly
true given that the details are likely to be contested.

I think that the TC's correct approach is probably to make a bare
statement that:

    Users upgrading to jessie should, by default, not be automatically
    switched from sysvinit to systemd.

    A straightforward mechanism for making the switch should be
    provided and documented.

The alternative would be:

    Users upgrading to jessie should, by default, be automatically
    switched from sysvinit to systemd, where feasible.

    A straightforward mechanism for avoiding the switch should be
    provided and documented.

The detailed implications of what this means for dependencies should
be dealt with separately if the implementation runs into trouble or
conflict.

Ian.

Message #10 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Hedderly <paul@mjr.org>

To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:10:31 +0100

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:44:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> My view is that users should not be automatically switched when
> upgrading to jessie.  As I said in my intro to #746578:
> 

Just out of interest, had Upstrat been chose as the _default_ init system for
Debian, would you have had the same view?

--
Regards

Message #20 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: Paul Hedderly <paul@mjr.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:22:50 +0100

Paul Hedderly writes ("Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades"):
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:44:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > My view is that users should not be automatically switched when
> > upgrading to jessie.  As I said in my intro to #746578:
> 
> Just out of interest, had Upstrat been chose as the _default_ init system for
> Debian, would you have had the same view?

Yes.

Ian.

Message #25 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:16:11 -0700

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:44:43 +0100 Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> 
> At the risk of generating confusion due to a duplication of threads:

On the contrary, thank you for moving this to a separate thread.

I would like to propose that, if the TC addresses this point at all, it
does so sequentially rather than in parallel.  I think it's worth
addressing 746578 first, which (assuming apt does the right thing in the
various install/upgrade scenarios) can be solved rather easily and
hopefully uncontroversially.

> It appears that the answer to #746578 (libpam-systemd dependency) does
> not depend on whether users upgrading should be switched to systemd by
> default.  The current state in jessie is that users are switched by
> default.  This is controversial.

I don't think this is as controversial as you think.  The current setup,
including the sysvinit transitional package and new essential init
package, was discussed and implemented by maintainers of sysvinit,
systemd, and upstart, and cleanly supports all three, while reflecting
the systemd default.

Furthermore, to quote Steve Langasek's mail:
> For the record, this is not my position.  I understand Russ's
> concerns, but I also think the grub transition is as much an example
> of the *problems* with such an approach as it is of the successes,
> because at the end of the day users are still left to manually switch
> away from grub1 - many of whom never have, and have wound up with more
> bugs over the long term as a result of using EOLed software.  We
> should take care that our users' upgrade experience is a good one, but
> there are downsides to a policy of never making a change on upgrade
> that we haven't 100% proven won't result in boot regressions.

Returning to your mail:
> There are also of course important practical problems with
> automatically switching.  There have been suggestions that these
> should be dealt with by automatically detecting problem cases.  But we
> do not yet have a coherent design for such an approach, let alone an
> implementation.  It is IMO too late in the jessie release cycle for us
> to be developing and introducing such a thing.  This is particularly
> true given that the details are likely to be contested.

I disagree with your characterization here.

The sysvinit transitional package provides one fallback, which allows
users to boot sysvinit via init=/lib/sysvinit/init.  Michael Biebl is
currently working on automatically adding GRUB menu options to boot
sysvinit, to make that even easier.

Apart from that, I expect the problematic cases to be quite obvious and
uncontested (other than by those who consider "installing systemd at
all" a problematic case).  And we can add additional checks quite
easily.  The most obvious cases are:

- /etc/inittab entries other than the default.
- Hand-edited /etc/init.d/* scripts from packages that will be
  overridden by .service files.

> The alternative would be:
> 
>     Users upgrading to jessie should, by default, be automatically
>     switched from sysvinit to systemd, where feasible.
> 
>     A straightforward mechanism for avoiding the switch should be
>     provided and documented.

I agree with documenting this: we should have a very clear statement in
the release notes documenting the new default init system, and stating
that anyone wishing to continue using sysvinit should install
sysvinit-core and systemd-shim.  We should also have a NEWS entry in an
appropriate package, for the benefit of users with apt-listchanges
installed.

I would also propose introducing a separate alternative requesting an
explicit unconditional prompt on upgrade; while not optimal, it would be
easy enough to add, and still preferable to having a different default
for upgrades than for new installs.

- Josh Triplett

Message #30 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@gmail.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 14:56:07 +0200

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:16:11 -0700 Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with documenting this: we should have a very clear statement in
> the release notes documenting the new default init system, and stating
> that anyone wishing to continue using sysvinit should install
> sysvinit-core and systemd-shim.  We should also have a NEWS entry in an
> appropriate package, for the benefit of users with apt-listchanges
> installed.

Yes, documenting the alternatives to the "default" is IMO an obvious
prerequisite to declaring it ready for prime time (thinking of the day
jessie will become stable).

Now I still wonder about the practicality of "aptitude install
sysvinit-core systemd-shim": due to the far-reaching dependencies and
exclusion rules, it seems that an already installed system (like an
already running one that underwent an upgrade) will not trivially
accept the move (that is, without asking to uninstall 90% of the
system). I would like to say "atomically remove systemd-sysv and
install sysvinit-core systemd-shim" but the way to do so escapes me.
What am I missing ?

-Alex

Message #39 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: automatic switching - two proposals

Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:58:37 +0000

Here are two texts as I promised.  The first one (A) is just what Russ
and others said they would support.

The second, (B), is a longer text which invites technical proposals
for non-auto-changing but explicitly avoids interfering with the GR.
If we can get a majority for something like B I think it would be more
helpful.

I hereby formally propose both versions.

If you would support something like B but only if it had some changes
to wording, please let me know ASAP.

Thanks,
Ian.


===== text in version A and also version B =====

0. We offer advice and make our views known (Constitution 6.1(5):

1. The Technical Committee decision in February, selecting systemd as
   the default init system for Linux, should not be read as a decision
   that existing systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

===== text in version B only =====

2. We are currently sceptical about the idea that existing Debian
   GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
   General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
   ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
   (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
   be necessary in at least some circumstances.

4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
   which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
   would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
   existing init system so far as possible.

5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
   formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
   systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
   consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
   that may be.

--

Message #44 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals

Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:20:43 -0700

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> If you would support something like B but only if it had some changes
> to wording, please let me know ASAP.

> ===== text in version B only =====

> 2. We are currently sceptical about the idea that existing Debian
>    GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

If this were changed to:

  2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
     Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
     during a dist-upgrade to jessie.

and the rest left the same, I would prefer this to option A.  (In other
words, omitting the statement of skepticism in favor of the more neutral
statement that we've been asked to rule on the topic.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #49 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:24:07 +0000

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals"):
> If this were changed to:
> 
>   2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
>      Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
>      during a dist-upgrade to jessie.
> 
> and the rest left the same, I would prefer this to option A.  (In other
> words, omitting the statement of skepticism in favor of the more neutral
> statement that we've been asked to rule on the topic.)

I still prefer the more sceptical wording but I think this is good
enough.

So I hereby (propose if necessaary and) accept your text, and withdraw
what I was calling my version `A' in favour of the amended `B'.  I
have made this change in git.  The result is below.

I intend to call for votes later today.

Thanks,
Ian.


0. We offer advice and make our views known (Constitution 6.1(5):

1. The Technical Committee decision in February, selecting systemd as
   the default init system for Linux, should not be read as a decision
   that existing systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
   Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
   during a dist-upgrade to jessie.

3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
   General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
   ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
   (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
   be necessary in at least some circumstances.

4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
   which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
   would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
   existing init system so far as possible.

5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
   formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
   systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
   consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
   that may be.

-- 

Message #54 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals

Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:38:19 -0800

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I still prefer the more sceptical wording but I think this is good
> enough.

> So I hereby (propose if necessaary and) accept your text, and withdraw
> what I was calling my version `A' in favour of the amended `B'.  I have
> made this change in git.  The result is below.

> I intend to call for votes later today.

This looks great to me, Ian.  Thank you!

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #59 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 18:23:51 +0000

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > I intend to call for votes later today.
> 
> This looks great to me, Ian.  Thank you!

Thanks.  I hereby call for votes on the text below.

There are two options:

  Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
  FD. Further discussion

===

0. We offer advice and make our views known (Constitution 6.1(5):

1. The Technical Committee decision in February, selecting systemd as
   the default init system for Linux, should not be read as a decision
   that existing systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
   Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
   during a dist-upgrade to jessie.

3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
   General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
   ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
   (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
   be necessary in at least some circumstances.

4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
   which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
   would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
   existing init system so far as possible.

5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
   formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
   systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
   consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
   that may be.

===

Ian.

Message #64 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 18:24:06 +0000

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)"):
> Thanks.  I hereby call for votes on the text below.
> 
> There are two options:
> 
>   Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
>   FD. Further discussion

I vote
  Y, FD

Ian.

Message #69 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:26:49 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Thanks.  I hereby call for votes on the text below.

> There are two options:

>   Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
>   FD. Further discussion

> ===

> 0. We offer advice and make our views known (Constitution 6.1(5):

> 1. The Technical Committee decision in February, selecting systemd as
>    the default init system for Linux, should not be read as a decision
>    that existing systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

> 2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
>    Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
>    during a dist-upgrade to jessie.

> 3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
>    General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
>    ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
>    (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
>    be necessary in at least some circumstances.

> 4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
>    which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
>    would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
>    existing init system so far as possible.

> 5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
>    formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
>    systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
>    consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
>    that may be.

> ===

I vote:  Y, FD

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #74 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org>

To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 19:33:59 +0100

* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [141102 19:24]:
>   Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
>   FD. Further discussion

I vote Y, FD.


Thanks.


Andi

Message #79 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:45:55 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 06:23:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals"):
> > Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > > I intend to call for votes later today.
> > 
> > This looks great to me, Ian.  Thank you!

> Thanks.  I hereby call for votes on the text below.

> There are two options:

>   Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
>   FD. Further discussion

> 4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
>    which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
>    would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
>    existing init system so far as possible.

Since I don't agree that existing installations should keep sysvinit on
upgrade to jessie by default, I can't sign on to a statement encouraging
developers to spend their time trying to come up with a technical
implementation of the same.

I vote FD, Y.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #84 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:36:16 -0800

On Sun, 02 Nov 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#762194: automatic switching - two proposals"):
> > Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > > I intend to call for votes later today.
> > 
> > This looks great to me, Ian.  Thank you!
> 
> Thanks.  I hereby call for votes on the text below.
> 
> There are two options:
> 
>   Y.  Clarify decison and invite non-auto-switching proposals
>   FD. Further discussion

I vote 

Y FD.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
 -- Lowery's Law

Message #89 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>

To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:23:29 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

I vote

Y, FD

-- 
keith.packard@intel.com

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #94 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:06:10 +0000

Keith Packard writes ("Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)"):
> I vote
> 
> Y, FD

Thanks everyone.  With Keith's vote, the outcome is no longer in
doubt:
  Y,FD:  Ian, Russ, Andreas, Don, Keith
  FD,Y:  Steve
Y wins.

Don, shall I send a message to d-d-a ?  I think the bug needs to
remain open as we haven't actually resolved it yet.

Ian.

Message #99 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [CTTE #762194] On automatic init system switching on upgrade

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:19:36 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

The technical committee was asked in #762194 whether existing systems
should be automatically switched to systemd during a dist-upgrade to
jessie:

==== RESOLUTION ====

0. We offer advice and make our views known (Constitution 6.1(5)):

1. The Technical Committee decision in February, selecting systemd as
   the default init system for Linux, should not be read as a decision
   that existing systems should be automatically switched to systemd.

2. The Technical Committee has been asked to decide whether existing
   Debian GNU/Linux systems should be automatically switched to systemd
   during a dist-upgrade to jessie.

3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
   General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
   ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
   (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
   be necessary in at least some circumstances.

4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
   which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
   would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
   existing init system so far as possible.

5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
   formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
   systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
   consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
   that may be.

==== END OF RESOLUTION ====

The committee would like to thank everyone who participated in the
discussion of #762194.

Please see http://bugs.debian.org/762194 for discussion of this bug.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUWO5jAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05bYsIAJoNahPzID0Dxuz5M2eO9qau
8f4RzORcgpqsqg0s8+k0KtG4RSYy3ONqKRENuRvM3LWDaAN1YncCnzNjHqhvwh6b
1s5MnDNSOhh6s1Em9n4BW0eCowXeG6oaNacBNjcUQlr0MqgFyA25FKuYnKDlSKIP
2sxE6PfPUk/GRosd/+QZ3HqIa52a0jzFFshWUCKrV5WiftMES63CsjIurHCWowGR
MCEYuG3qENZ4hEj78GGCPxRoJXDF72WAtJv22tPrzIboOvenzkAXFcxKhE+cCes+
ba22wxbWXSPEnvFHnhKFrzDy/2A6ixSg9JUK3u0SRUgyclK++2AIl/r4RCLdPbo=
=BbXP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #104 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:27:59 +0000

Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#762194: Call for Votes (re automatic switching)"):
> Don, shall I send a message to d-d-a ?  I think the bug needs to
> remain open as we haven't actually resolved it yet.

I have sent the mail to d-d-a, as you'll see.  I used Don's last one
as a template.

Thanks, all.

Ian.

Message #109 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: On automatic init system switching on upgrade

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:51:12 +0100

Hi,

I would like to see an end to open questions on systemd in Jessie.

So, given that the GR is over and no technical proposals for not
switching init systems on upgrade to Jessie have been made, is it
possible to draw a conclusion to this issue now? I'm not sure there is
much to gain from waiting longer...

Ansgar

Message #114 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: 747535@bugs.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: On automatic init system switching on upgrade

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:39:10 +0100

On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 13:51 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to see an end to open questions on systemd in Jessie.
> 
> So, given that the GR is over and no technical proposals for not
> switching init systems on upgrade to Jessie have been made, is it
> possible to draw a conclusion to this issue now? I'm not sure there is
> much to gain from waiting longer...

Hi Ansgar and especially the ctte members,

Now when the GR outome is know it is time for the ctte to resolve the
bug report first issued by me in #747535, then issued by Ian in #762194
to the ctte, and then by me to the ctte in #765803. According to the
ctte announcement 
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html
the important parts of that text is:

3. We do not want to prejudge, interfere with, or contradict, the
   General Resolution process on init systems which is currently
   ongoing.  Some of the GR options imply that automatic switching
   (both during upgrades, and during leaf package installations) will
   be necessary in at least some circumstances.

The GR is now resolved: No GR required.

4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
   which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
   would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
   existing init system so far as possible.

Solutions exists or are in the works for solving this.

5. After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to
   formally resolve the question of automatic switching of init
   systems.  Our decision on that question will of course be
   consistent with the successful General Resolution option, whatever
   that may be.

This issue is not resolved, and since the GR did not give any answer on
the above problem, this question now bounces back to the ctte! Now with
three less members, down to five :( Or can the resigning members still
be part of deciding on this issue?

Note also that the bug about automatic switching of init systems was
issued in March this year by me, and brought to the ctte in September
by Ian and me in October. Ian is/was was in the ctte, but I'm not, so
the question about if a ctte member can issue an issue to the ctte, and
vote at the same time does not apply in this case. (in case somebody
questions the involvement by Ian (as has been done)).

Bug #746578 is now resolved by the ctte in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00010.html
about the order of systemd-shim and systemd-sysv, but the above bugs
still have to be resolved by the ctte. So Ansgar, this has to be
dragged on for still some while.

Thank you for your attention.

Message #119 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>

To: svante.signell@gmail.com, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: 747535@bugs.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: On automatic init system switching on upgrade

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:07:12 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:

> 4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
>    which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
>    would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
>    existing init system so far as possible.
>
> Solutions exists or are in the works for solving this.

I'm aware that people are actively working on this. When a concrete
proposal is ready, we'll be able to consider it. Any resolution before
that would be clouded by uncertainty.

Future software is always bug-free and runs in O(1) time...

-- 
keith.packard@intel.com

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #124 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:21:16 +0100

Hi!
As Ansgar requests technical solutions, here's one:

just like systemd-shim|systemd-sysv, switch the "init" package from
  Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
to
  Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart

The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.  On the
other hand, during upgrades, the init system is driven by apt's resolution
of the above pre-dependency.  If systemd-sysv or upstart were already
installed, no change is done; if none of these three packages is present,
apt would install sysvinit-core, preserving existing init system.

Just as exim|postfix or xfce|lxde|gnome|... choice is preserved over
upgrades -- even if the default for new installation changes -- it is
inappropriate to override the existing init system.

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Message #129 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:01:22 -0800

Hello,

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> Hi!
> As Ansgar requests technical solutions, here's one:
>
> just like systemd-shim|systemd-sysv, switch the "init" package from
>   Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
>   Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
>
> The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
> scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.  On the
> other hand, during upgrades, the init system is driven by apt's resolution
> of the above pre-dependency.  If systemd-sysv or upstart were already
> installed, no change is done; if none of these three packages is present,
> apt would install sysvinit-core, preserving existing init system.

One of Steve Langasek's criticisms of not switching by default was the
pain of having systems still running sysvinit for many years to come,
which makes the distribution more difficult to support.

If there was an intention to do so, how would we go about switching
systems over to systemd in the next release, if we use the solution
displayed here in Jessie?

Thanks,
--
Cameron Norman

Message #134 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:06:25 -0800

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Cameron Norman
<camerontnorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> As Ansgar requests technical solutions, here's one:
>>
>> just like systemd-shim|systemd-sysv, switch the "init" package from
>>   Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
>> to
>>   Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
>>
>> The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
>> scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.  On the
>> other hand, during upgrades, the init system is driven by apt's resolution
>> of the above pre-dependency.  If systemd-sysv or upstart were already
>> installed, no change is done; if none of these three packages is present,
>> apt would install sysvinit-core, preserving existing init system.
>
> One of Steve Langasek's criticisms of not switching by default was the
> pain of having systems still running sysvinit for many years to come,
> which makes the distribution more difficult to support.

Here is the message which I am referencing. Please see the footnote. I
hope I did not misrepresent you, Steve, please correct me if so.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746578#66

--
Cameron Norman

Message #139 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:15:44 +0100

]] Adam Borowski 

> The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
> scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.

This has not been true for many years. (sarge seems to be the last one
where it was true, and etch is the first that uses the priorities from
the various indices.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #142 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:28:22 +0100

Hi,

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> As Ansgar requests technical solutions, here's one:
>
> just like systemd-shim|systemd-sysv, switch the "init" package from
>   Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
>   Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart

From a simple test this seems to change what debootstrap installs in
some configurations (namely at least with --variant=minbase).

Ansgar

Message #147 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:43:25 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> (2014-11-22):
> Hi!
> As Ansgar requests technical solutions, here's one:
> 
> just like systemd-shim|systemd-sysv, switch the "init" package from
>   Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
>   Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
> 
> The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
> scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.  On the
> other hand, during upgrades, the init system is driven by apt's resolution
> of the above pre-dependency.  If systemd-sysv or upstart were already
> installed, no change is done; if none of these three packages is present,
> apt would install sysvinit-core, preserving existing init system.

Proposing “solutions” based on wrong facts (see Tollef's reply) and
without including the respective maintainers in the loop doesn't look
like the right way to solve technical issues.

KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #152 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: a technical proposal

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:57:03 +0100

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:15:44PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > The set of packages installed by d-i / debootstrap is steered by hard-coded
> > scripts, thus new systems can default to whatever is set there.
> 
> This has not been true for many years. (sarge seems to be the last one
> where it was true, and etch is the first that uses the priorities from
> the various indices.)

I wrote "scripts" not "lists of packages".  The scripts do take priorities
from the "Packages" file from the chosen mirror, but that's just one of
inputs.  A script lists a number of additional packages, a number of quirks,
forced ordering and so on.  You can make a script do whatever you like.


-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Message #157 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 17:29:42 -0800

Hello everyone,

Since I myself and some others had some criticisms and/or doubts of
Adam Borowski's proposal, I would like to propose a different one.
With this I hope to:

 * make new installations use systemd-sysv (with no reliance on
undefined or inconsistent behavior from the various ways of setting up
a Debian install or chroot)
 * make current installations that have sysvinit stick with it
 * allow for the automatic switch from sysvinit to systemd-sysv in
stretch, buster, or another later release

So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
*would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
(pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".

If an automatic switch is something that the project wants, but after
Jessie, then then the init dependency would be changed to
"systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart".

Cheers,
--
Cameron Norman

Message #162 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 03:10:14 +0100

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
> I would like to propose a different one.
[...]
> 
> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".

I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
packages to be essential if they're present in any source.

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Message #167 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:32:33 +0100

On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 03:10 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
> > I would like to propose a different one.
> [...]
> > 
> > So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
> > transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
> > explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
> > that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
> > *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
> > (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
> 
> I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
> systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
> packages to be essential if they're present in any source.

Do people use the usb stick/cd/dvd etc for upgrades to jessie, i.e. the
debian installer. Or do they only use apt/aptitude/etc?

Message #172 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: svante.signell@gmail.com, 762194@bugs.debian.org, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:55:10 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:

> Do people use the usb stick/cd/dvd etc for upgrades to jessie, i.e. the
> debian installer. Or do they only use apt/aptitude/etc?

I don't know that we can speak in absolutes, but I've never personally
seen or heard of anyone using debian-installer to do an upgrade.

Bdale

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #177 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:00:51 +0100

On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 13:55 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Do people use the usb stick/cd/dvd etc for upgrades to jessie, i.e. the
> > debian installer. Or do they only use apt/aptitude/etc?
> 
> I don't know that we can speak in absolutes, but I've never personally
> seen or heard of anyone using debian-installer to do an upgrade.

Has the proposed (pre-)depends ordering on init been tested and the
results known? The technical solution asked for in #765803 might be the
above for upgrades. The installer is not used for upgrades and is no
issue here.

Message #180 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:12:23 +0100

Hi Svante,

Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:
> Has the proposed (pre-)depends ordering on init been tested and the
> results known?

You might want to read https://bugs.debian.org/762194#142, but the
obligation for tests is really on the side of the people who want this
change (IMO).

Ansgar

Message #185 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:29:28 +0100

Hello,

Below is a proposal for a (partial) solution for the upgrade problem of
keeping the installed init system:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765803

This has been discussed privately among selected users/DM/DDs and since
the deadline for the ctte is December 4, it has to be known to them (and
-devel for comments).

(another partial? solution is to change order of the (pre-)depends of
the init package, as proposed in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194
with preliminary results in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#142)

1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
about the apt pinning solution.

2) In case you missed doing the above, you get a debconf prompt when
installing the init package that if you want to keep sysv/openrc/etc
continue with the installation, get systemd-sysv installed and after
that install sysvinit-core and do the pinning. (This is suboptimal, many
peoples systems could be broken at first reboot, we will find out in due
time).

Another issue is upgrading from testing/sid?/etc (different status) to
jessie:
3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.

Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
matter of writing.

Sincerely!

Message #190 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:56:00 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:

> (another partial? solution is to change order of the (pre-)depends of
> the init package, as proposed in

No, that breaks due to the bug in debootstrap’s dependency “resolver”
(see #557322, #668001, #768062) and the unwillingness of KiBi to fix
that. That is, it breaks fresh installs.

> 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> about the apt pinning solution.

That should be a given, a minimum, independent of the others.

> 2) In case you missed doing the above, you get a debconf prompt when

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Again: aborting the dist-upgrade in the debconf of one
package may leave the system an ugly mess, especially
if you don’t preconfigure packages.

The linux-image-* check in their prerm for an attempt
to remove the running kernel. Even that is borderline,
and only somewhat acceptable because you would not
normally do that during a dist-upgrade.

This is not “suboptimal”, this invites not just new
bugs but new classes of bugs. Recovering the system
after that is going to be hell.

One thing you *could* do is a debconf warning (just
a message!) after the switch to systemd, to tell users
to switch back manually *before* rebooting (for these
cases where e.g. systemd is incompatible with the SoC’s
2.6 kernel you absolutely must run). Does that work,
anyway (i.e. does installing systemd and immediately
reverting to sysvinit leave the system net unchanged,
modulo the dependencies it pulls in (see planet post))?

> 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
> sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.

As I said, this should be a given.

> Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
> prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
> matter of writing.

Right, and I believe that a debconf *message* is
appropriate, but a *prompt* with a choice to abort
the upgrade is wrong.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Just a user…

Message #195 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:19:37 +0100

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:

> > 2) In case you missed doing the above, you get a debconf prompt when
> 
> No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
> 
> Again: aborting the dist-upgrade in the debconf of one
> package may leave the system an ugly mess, especially
> if you don’t preconfigure packages.

I did _not_ propose aborting the dist-upgrade here. Sorry for not being
clear enough. The proposed debconf prompt is just for information: <hit
return to continue>

Message #200 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:27:33 +0100

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:

>  Does that work,
> anyway (i.e. does installing systemd and immediately
> reverting to sysvinit leave the system net unchanged,
> modulo the dependencies it pulls in (see planet post))?

I've installed testing (basic install) on a new box and immediately
after first reboot installed sysvinit-core. That worked for me, but as
written before, it can create problems for people having different
preferences set.

Message #205 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org>

To: svante.signell@gmail.com, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:46:55 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> about the apt pinning solution.
> 
> 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
> sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.
> 

See
https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/issues.dbk?view=markup
lines 170 to 223.

Are you after something different? How about raising a bug against the
release-notes package before asking tech-ctte to do something?

> Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
> prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
> matter of writing.
> 

Alternatively: The only hard bit of the above is the creation of the
release notes. All the rest is just a matter of coding.

Neil
-- 

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #210 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:23:19 +0100

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:46 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> > wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> > about the apt pinning solution.
> > 
> > 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
> > sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.
> > 
> 
> See
> https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/issues.dbk?view=markup
> lines 170 to 223.
> 
> Are you after something different? How about raising a bug against the
> release-notes package before asking tech-ctte to do something?

Is it possible to get access to edit those pages? By filing a bug
against release-notes?

> > Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
> > prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
> > matter of writing.

To clarify: debconf "prompt" -> debconf "message", meaning that the
install is not to be aborted, only an informal message is written and
<hit CR to continue>. Is it possible to propose a text here?

> Alternatively: The only hard bit of the above is the creation of the
> release notes. All the rest is just a matter of coding.

YMMV

Message #215 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:37:26 +0000

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:23:19PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:46 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> > > wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> > > about the apt pinning solution.
> > > 
> > > 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
> > > sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.
> > > 
> > 
> > See
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/issues.dbk?view=markup
> > lines 170 to 223.
> > 
> > Are you after something different? How about raising a bug against the
> > release-notes package before asking tech-ctte to do something?
> 
> Is it possible to get access to edit those pages? By filing a bug
> against release-notes?
> 

https://www.debian.org/doc/cvs, though I suggest a patch would probably
be better, and that should be a bug against release-notes.

> > > Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
> > > prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
> > > matter of writing.
> 
> To clarify: debconf "prompt" -> debconf "message", meaning that the
> install is not to be aborted, only an informal message is written and
> <hit CR to continue>. Is it possible to propose a text here?
> 
> > Alternatively: The only hard bit of the above is the creation of the
> > release notes. All the rest is just a matter of coding.
> 

Indeed, my point was that 'just writing text' doesn't mean it happens -
we've traditionally been very understaffed in that bit of the project.

Neil

Message #220 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:56:31 +0100

Hello,

In the (last) hope that the CTTE will bring this issue on the agenda
next meeting on December 4. Additional information below and a short
summary.

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 09:56 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
> 
> > (another partial? solution is to change order of the (pre-)depends of
> > the init package, as proposed in
> 
> No, that breaks due to the bug in debootstrap’s dependency “resolver”
> (see #557322, #668001, #768062) and the unwillingness of KiBi to fix
> that. That is, it breaks fresh installs.

Note, this (long-time) refusal to make changes to that package has to be
weighted in when the CTTE is discussing this issue: There are very small
patches available before the freeze Wed, 5 Nov 2014 (Sun, 22 Nov 2009
and  Fri, 17 Oct 2014) that has not been addressed by the maintainer:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=557322#24
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668001#20
and reported working
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668001#50

And according to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194
with preliminary results in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#142
the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
to
Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart

(I hope I made the correct links and conclusions)

> > 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> > wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> > about the apt pinning solution.
> 
> That should be a given, a minimum, independent of the others.

I'll file a bug against release notes about the release-notes!

In summary:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
message about alternative init systems.

More detailed:
1) Fix debootstrap bugs
2) Add a (non-aborting) debconf message referring to release-notes on
how to install sysvinit-core when installing from scratch.
3) Add information in release-notes on how to:
- Upgrade from stable/testing/sid to jessie to avoid getting
systemd-sysv installed (this should not strictly be needed if the ctte
chooses to decide that upgrades will _not_ switch init)
- Install sysvinit-core after installation and reboot after getting
systemd-sysv as default.

3.1) I'll file a bug against release-notes as written above.

Message #225 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:01:49 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:

> the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart

That would probably require changes in d-i to ensure that
systemd is, indeed, installed by default on fresh installs,
but otherwise has the most chance of keeping existing systems
running properly, so I think that this change is fair, yes.

> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> kept.

Are there any upgrade paths where software existing in wheezy
requires systemd in jessie? If so, these are corner cases where
switching init may or may not be avoidable; if not, present a
debconf message here. But the vast majority probably should not
(need to; even GNOME can work with the shim) switch, yes.

> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> message about alternative init systems.

I think this is not fair, though. CTTE decided that systemd be
the default init system for Linux in jessie “period”. That means
no debconf message required here.

Do note that new installs of kFreeBSD and Hurd should not get
systemd, but what exactly is probably up to the porters for lack
of a CTTE decision in that.

> 1) Fix debootstrap bugs

Yesplease!

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
«MyISAM tables -will- get corrupted eventually. This is a fact of life. »
“mysql is about as much database as ms access” – “MSSQL at least descends
from a database” “it's a rebranded SyBase” “MySQL however was born from a
flatfile and went downhill from there” – “at least jetDB doesn’t claim to
be a database”	‣‣‣ Please, http://deb.li/mysql and MariaDB, finally die!

Message #230 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

Cc: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:41:23 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Nov 28, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:

> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the 
system administrator chooses otherwise.

> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> message about alternative init systems.
It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user 
with pointless advertisement.
This can be documented in the release notes, if needed.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #235 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:49:12 +0100

On 2014-11-28 14:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 28, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>> message about alternative init systems.
> It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user 
> with pointless advertisement.
> This can be documented in the release notes, if needed.
> 

I suspect it would fit better in the "installation-guide".  The
release-notes concerns itself mainly with upgrades and not with "fresh
installs".

~Niels

Message #240 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:16:37 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> On Nov 28, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> > kept.
> I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the 
> system administrator chooses otherwise.

I disagree with you, and so does CTTE, this time: they said
that existing installations should retain their init system
– which goes along with “upgrades should not change the sy‐
sytem state” generall – as much as possible.

> > b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> > message about alternative init systems.
> It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user 
> with pointless advertisement.

I actually have to agree here.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
	-- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general

Message #245 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:22:53 +0100

On 11/28/2014 03:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the 
>> system administrator chooses otherwise.
> 
> I disagree with you, and so does CTTE, this time: they said
> that existing installations should retain their init system
> – which goes along with “upgrades should not change the sy‐
> sytem state” generall – as much as possible.

No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
interpretation before.

Ansgar

Message #250 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

To: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:24:18 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

> No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
> interpretation before.

That was almost word by word from
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
>> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also don't like enabling JavaScript in
> Because I use lynx as browser.
+1
	-- Octavio Alvarez, me and ⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕ (Mario Lang) on debian-devel

Message #255 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:28:49 +0100

On 11/28/2014 03:24 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
>> interpretation before.
> 
> That was almost word by word from
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html

See [1] and [2] and possibly other places.

Ansgar

  [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00046.html
  [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00049.html

Message #260 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:26:57 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>On Nov 28, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
>> kept.
>I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
>system administrator chooses otherwise.

Of course not. syslog-ng was not replaced by rsyslog when Debian changed 
the default syslog. The grub1 bootloader was not replaced when Debian 
changed to grub2. If Debian changed from exim to postfix the existing MTA 
would not be changed.

So keep your hands of the init system on upgrades.

>> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>> message about alternative init systems.
>It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user
>with pointless advertisement.

This question could be part of the expert menu.

Shade and sweet water!

	Stephan

-- 
| Stephan Seitz          E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #265 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

Cc: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:32:45 +0000

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 
> > No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
> > interpretation before.
> 
> That was almost word by word from
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html
> 

Hi Thorsten,

I think you may be misreading the text there. They /did not/ say that
the init system should not be switched. I'll try a simplified version
of the resolution below.

0) This is advice, it's non-binding.
1) The previous resolution was silent on automatic switching.
2) We've been asked to decide about automatic switching and...
3) We don't want to decide this while there's a GR going on.
4) Please propose changes which would make new installations get
systemd, and upgrades retain existing init so that...
5) We can decide what to do after the GR is over.

Hope this clarifies.

Neil

Message #270 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:17:08 +0100

]] Svante Signell 

[...]

> And according to
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194
> with preliminary results in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#142
> the order of pre-depends for int init package should change from
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
> to
> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
> 
> (I hope I made the correct links and conclusions)

That would require changes to a number of packages to ensure they end up
installing the default init.  (vmdebootstrap, ganeti, fai at least comes
to mind).  I think it would also be crazy for debootstrap to end up
installing a non-default init by default.

Arguably, debootstrap could be taught not to install an init at all, but
that tool will require adjusting all those other ways of installing
Debian as well as a good bunch of testing to ensure nothing breaks.  I
don't think that would be appropriate at this stage of the freeze.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #275 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:38:01 -0800

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
> And according to https://bugs.debian.org/762194 with preliminary
> results in https://bugs.debian.org/762194#142 the order of pre-depends
> for int init package should change from
>
> Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
>
> to
>
> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart

This message (#142) indicates that switching the dependency order will
change what debootstrap installs by default. This isn't acceptable, even
if we were to override the decision of the maintainers of the init
package to install systemd-sysv by default on upgrades.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Everyone has to die. And in a hundred years nobody's going to inquire
just how most people died. The best thing is to do it in the way that
strikes your fancy most.
 -- Kenzaburō Ōe _Silent Cry_ p5

Message #280 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:15:08 +0100

One claim is changed, see below.

On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hello,

> In summary:
> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> kept.
> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> message about alternative init systems.

Since there is no interest in adding a debconf message on new installs,
I wish for a menu entry in the advanced part of the installer to be able
to install a new system with sysvinit-core or upstart!

Message #285 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:23:28 -0800

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
>> I would like to propose a different one.
> [...]
>>
>> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
>> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
>> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
>> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
>> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
>> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
> systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
> packages to be essential if they're present in any source.

I take it you mean that the user will have to remove an essential
package to install systemd-sysv, not that the package will not be
installable, correct?

That seems reasonable to me. If the user has packages from Wheezy
installed, those packages could reasonably depend on sysvinit as PID 1
without expressing that dependency. It would be a bug, IMO, if
sysvinit was not PID 1 while Wheezy packages were installed and the
user had not expressed that he or she understood the implications of
removing sysvinit.

Thus, I maintain that my proposal is an appropiate approach.

Cheers,
--
Cameron Norman

Message #288 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:14:07 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> One claim is changed, see below.
> 
> On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Hello,
> 
> > In summary:
> > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> > kept.
> > b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> > message about alternative init systems.
> 
> Since there is no interest in adding a debconf message on new installs,
> I wish for a menu entry in the advanced part of the installer to be able
> to install a new system with sysvinit-core or upstart!

That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
udebs, new strings, new everything. We're actually trying to release.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #293 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:40:06 +0100

On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:14 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > One claim is changed, see below.
> > 
> > On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > 
> > > In summary:
> > > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> > > kept.
> > > b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> > > message about alternative init systems.
> > 
> > Since there is no interest in adding a debconf message on new installs,
> > I wish for a menu entry in the advanced part of the installer to be able
> > to install a new system with sysvinit-core or upstart!
> 
> That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
> package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
> udebs, new strings, new everything. We're actually trying to release.

This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
please! Use Debian as upstream (as long as it lives)

Yes, next Debian release is lendows, not jessie :(

Message #298 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:02:30 +0000

On 29-11-2014 19:40, Svante Signell wrote:
[...]

> This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
> please! Use Debian as upstream (as long as it lives)
> 
> Yes, next Debian release is lendows, not jessie :(

Thanks! We appreciate less noise on these lists and on the next release
- which it's currently frozen, although you don't care.
Good luck.

-- 
Melhores cumprimentos/Best regards,

Miguel Figueiredo

Message #303 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:19:08 +0000

On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
> please!

You are of course free to do that. This discussion is about what Debian
should do, however. If you wish to discuss Devuan, please do so in a
more appropriate forum.

Regards,

Adam

Message #308 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 21:27:42 +0100

On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:19 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > This is another nail in the Universal OS coffin: Let's move to devuan,
> > please!
> 
> You are of course free to do that. This discussion is about what Debian
> should do, however. If you wish to discuss Devuan, please do so in a
> more appropriate forum.

Yes, I'll do that. But it does not seem like you are realizing what is
happening unfortunately. Debian will not be as it was historically due
to this issue. Maybe the new DDs are to young to learn from history?

Message #313 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 12:30:49 -0800

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > One claim is changed, see below.

> > On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Hello,

> > > In summary:
> > > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> > > kept.
> > > b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> > > message about alternative init systems.

> > Since there is no interest in adding a debconf message on new installs,
> > I wish for a menu entry in the advanced part of the installer to be able
> > to install a new system with sysvinit-core or upstart!

> That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
> package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
> udebs, new strings, new everything. We're actually trying to release.

Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are going to
have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to systemd,
then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that means
unfreezing the installer.

I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is the
right solution here; I don't think that it is.  But I also don't think that
the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Message #318 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:36:29 +0000

On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 21:27 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> But it does not seem like you are realizing what is
> happening unfortunately. Debian will not be as it was historically due
> to this issue. Maybe the new DDs are to young to learn from history?

Please don't patronise people. Just because someone disagrees with you,
it doesn't mean that they're naive and unseeing and would be so much
better off if you could just lift the mist from in front of their eyes.

I'll stop contributing to the noise myself now, apologies to everyone
else.

Regards,

Adam

Message #323 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:01:42 +0100

On 2014-11-29 21:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are 
> going to
> have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to 
> systemd,
> then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that 
> means
> unfreezing the installer.

Sure. But where is the evidence for that? Is there a bug that has been 
agreed upon to be RC?

> I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is 
> the
> right solution here; I don't think that it is.  But I also don't think 
> that
> the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.

Not even the release freeze, rather the d-i freeze. Unless this is RC 
for d-i, that is.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Message #328 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:25:51 +0100

On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 22:01 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2014-11-29 21:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are 
> > going to
> > have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to 
> > systemd,
> > then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that 
> > means
> > unfreezing the installer.
> 
> Sure. But where is the evidence for that? Is there a bug that has been 
> agreed upon to be RC?
> 
> > I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is 
> > the
> > right solution here; I don't think that it is.  But I also don't think 
> > that
> > the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.
> 
> Not even the release freeze, rather the d-i freeze. Unless this is RC 
> for d-i, that is

Ok, I've tried to no avail. Debian is no democracy (maybe never was).
ctte do as you feel there are no alternative solutions, just state the
fact with your decision EOT.

Message #333 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klumpp <mak@debian.org>

To: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

Cc: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 05:53:27 +0100

2014-11-29 22:25 GMT+01:00 Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 22:01 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2014-11-29 21:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are
>> > going to
>> > have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to
>> > systemd,
>> > then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that
>> > means
>> > unfreezing the installer.
>>
>> Sure. But where is the evidence for that? Is there a bug that has been
>> agreed upon to be RC?
>>
>> > I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is
>> > the
>> > right solution here; I don't think that it is.  But I also don't think
>> > that
>> > the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.
>>
>> Not even the release freeze, rather the d-i freeze. Unless this is RC
>> for d-i, that is
>
> Ok, I've tried to no avail. Debian is no democracy (maybe never was).

It never was a democracy - it was and is a meritocracy, described as
"the reign of knowledge"[1].
And we are going quite well with that.

[1]: http://debian-handbook.info/browse/wheezy/sect.debian-internals.html#idp5715200

Message #338 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 08:15:45 +0100

]] Cameron Norman 

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
> >> I would like to propose a different one.
> > [...]
> >>
> >> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
> >> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
> >> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
> >> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
> >> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
> >> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
> >
> > I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
> > systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
> > packages to be essential if they're present in any source.
> 
> I take it you mean that the user will have to remove an essential
> package to install systemd-sysv, not that the package will not be
> installable, correct?
> 
> That seems reasonable to me. If the user has packages from Wheezy
> installed, those packages could reasonably depend on sysvinit as PID 1
> without expressing that dependency.

No.  They could reasonably depend on sysvinit being installed.  We ship
alternative inits in wheezy, some of which does not require sysvinit to
be uninstalled (systemd and runit comes to mind, I would not be
surprised if there are more).

However, in the tradition of Essential packages, nowhere is it
well-defined which of sysvinits interfaces were part of the
essentialness and which are not.  I kinda wish we'd fix that at some
point, to make it easier to swap out (or get rid of) Essential packages.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #343 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>,

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:13:16 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Steve,

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 07:15:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > One claim is changed, see below.
>
>> > On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > > Hello,
>
>> > > In summary:
>> > > a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
>> > > kept.
>> > > b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>> > > message about alternative init systems.
>
>> > Since there is no interest in adding a debconf message on new installs,
>> > I wish for a menu entry in the advanced part of the installer to be able
>> > to install a new system with sysvinit-core or upstart!
>
>> That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
>> package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
>> udebs, new strings, new everything. We're actually trying to release.
>
> Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are going to
> have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to systemd,
> then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that means
> unfreezing the installer.
>
> I am not saying that making init systems a choice in the installer is the
> right solution here; I don't think that it is.  But I also don't think that
> the release freeze can reasonably be an argument against it.

How can someone be "switched to systemd" on a fresh install?

If you were pointing out an instance where upgrades could bite users,
that would be different, and might well be an RC bug.

Apparently however, you're talking about the installer, which has
nothing to do with upgrades, so cannot result in anything being
"switched" (well, not unless you're saying that the person is being
switched from being one sort of user to another, and might find that a
bad experience ... but then I've no idea what the "appropriate steps"
might be ;-) )

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. For those that think there's no choice when installing:

  https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

I'd suggest that anyone that knows enough to have an opinion about their
preferred init will be able to manage that simple extra step with ease.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #348 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:13:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Philip Hands:
> P.S. For those that think there's no choice when installing:
> 
>   https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
> 
> I'd suggest that anyone that knows enough to have an opinion about their
> preferred init will be able to manage that simple extra step with ease.

+1

One might apply the same argument to upgrading …
(assuming that the not-yet-implemented warnings,
 re inittab/fstab/runlevels, do not trigger)

-- 
-- Matthias Urlichs

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #353 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darren Salt <listspam@moreofthesa.me.uk>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 12:50:21 +0000

I demand that Stephan Seitz may or may not have written...

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Nov 28, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
>>> kept.
>> I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
>> system administrator chooses otherwise.

> Of course not. syslog-ng was not replaced by rsyslog when Debian changed
> the default syslog. The grub1 bootloader was not replaced when Debian
> changed to grub2. If Debian changed from exim to postfix the existing MTA
> would not be changed.

> So keep your hands of the init system on upgrades.

Seconded.

FWIW, I'm using lilo. That's still available, maintained and working, and I
see no reason to change: grub offers more complexity and more options, but
lilo does exactly what I want/need of it.

>>> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
>>> message about alternative init systems.
>> It would be totally unacceptable to waste the time of every Debian user
>> with pointless advertisement.

> This question could be part of the expert menu.

I for one would welcome this. When I last checked, there was such a question
regarding choice of boot loader (and, presumably, that's still there).

-- 
|  _  | Darren Salt, using Debian GNU/Linux (and Android)
| ( ) |
|  X  | ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
| / \ | http://www.asciiribbon.org/

To light a candle is to cast a shadow.

Message #358 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

To: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 09:37:04 -0800

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> ]] Cameron Norman
>
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
>> >> I would like to propose a different one.
>> > [...]
>> >>
>> >> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
>> >> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
>> >> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
>> >> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
>> >> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
>> >> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
>> >
>> > I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
>> > systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
>> > packages to be essential if they're present in any source.
>>
>> I take it you mean that the user will have to remove an essential
>> package to install systemd-sysv, not that the package will not be
>> installable, correct?
>>
>> That seems reasonable to me. If the user has packages from Wheezy
>> installed, those packages could reasonably depend on sysvinit as PID 1
>> without expressing that dependency.
>
> No.  They could reasonably depend on sysvinit being installed.  We ship
> alternative inits in wheezy, some of which does not require sysvinit to
> be uninstalled (systemd and runit comes to mind, I would not be
> surprised if there are more).
>
> However, in the tradition of Essential packages, nowhere is it
> well-defined which of sysvinits interfaces were part of the
> essentialness and which are not.  I kinda wish we'd fix that at some
> point, to make it easier to swap out (or get rid of) Essential packages.

Would systemd-sysv having a `Provides: sysvinit` fix this issue? I
think if the pre-installation /etc/inittab checking that has been
discussed is implemented then systemd could reasonably be considered
to provide sysvinit's interfaces (especially with the /dev/initctl
compatibility).

Thank you,
--
Cameron

Message #363 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: Cameron Norman <camerontnorman@gmail.com>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:38:50 +0100

]] Cameron Norman 

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> > ]] Cameron Norman
> >
> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
> >> >> I would like to propose a different one.
> >> > [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
> >> >> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
> >> >> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
> >> >> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
> >> >> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
> >> >> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
> >> >
> >> > I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
> >> > systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
> >> > packages to be essential if they're present in any source.
> >>
> >> I take it you mean that the user will have to remove an essential
> >> package to install systemd-sysv, not that the package will not be
> >> installable, correct?
> >>
> >> That seems reasonable to me. If the user has packages from Wheezy
> >> installed, those packages could reasonably depend on sysvinit as PID 1
> >> without expressing that dependency.
> >
> > No.  They could reasonably depend on sysvinit being installed.  We ship
> > alternative inits in wheezy, some of which does not require sysvinit to
> > be uninstalled (systemd and runit comes to mind, I would not be
> > surprised if there are more).
> >
> > However, in the tradition of Essential packages, nowhere is it
> > well-defined which of sysvinits interfaces were part of the
> > essentialness and which are not.  I kinda wish we'd fix that at some
> > point, to make it easier to swap out (or get rid of) Essential packages.
> 
> Would systemd-sysv having a `Provides: sysvinit` fix this issue?

I'm not sure which of my two points you're addressing, but I don't think
it would fix either.  Packages in wheezy can assume the interfaces
provided by sysvinit are present without any kind of
dependency. (Arguably, they can only assume those in squeeze are
present, if one wants to support partial upgrades, but that's not
particularly important here.)  Whether systemd-sysv in jessie Provides
sysvinit or not has no influence on this; there's no dependency being
tracked.

Whether it Provides: sysvinit or not does not change the level (or lack
thereof) of documentation on which of sysvinit's interfaces are
Essential.  For instance, I would be surprised if /usr/include/initreq.h
is considered part of the Essential interfaces, and by that I mean more
the «you don't need to depend on this», rather than the «must work when
not configured».  The latter is trivial for a .h file, except it
includes bits from libc6-dev, which I think we all agree should not be
considered transitively Essential, because that would be crazy.
/sbin/runlevel and /sbin/telinit I would consider part of the Essential
interface of sysvinit, but my point is: nowhere is this documented, so
different people will make different assumptions here.

> I think if the pre-installation /etc/inittab checking that has been
> discussed is implemented then systemd could reasonably be considered
> to provide sysvinit's interfaces (especially with the /dev/initctl
> compatibility).

Some of them, sure.  All?  No.  And I'm still not sure which problem
you'd be trying to solve with that.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #368 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wolodja Wentland <debian@babilen5.org>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Cc: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org, Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>, Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie (lendows 1)

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:36:34 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:30 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:

> > That's even more unlikely than to add a debconf message (which would be
> > package-owned). Yes, debian-installer is frozen. This would add new
> > udebs, new strings, new everything. We're actually trying to release.
> 
> Debian releases when it's ready.  If large numbers of our users are going to
> have a bad experience with jessie as a result of being switched to systemd,
> then we should take appropriate steps to address that, even if that means
> unfreezing the installer.

Indeed. Jessie should be released once "large numbers of our users [will] no
longer have a bad experience as a result of being switched to systemd [because
all relevant bugs have been fixed]".

As somebody who is active in user support on IRC I dread the jessie release if it
means that we will ask people for years to come if they have switched to systemd
after their upgrade and, if not, walk them through the process. So far most
users who had a bad experience with jessie did so because they did *not* switch
and the fact that -shim wasn't ready.

"having a bad experience" should directly translate into bugs that can, and have
to, be fixed before the release. I would welcome a more technical discussion at
this point rather than an emotional one.

Thank you and everybody else for their wonderful work and patience.
-- 
Wolodja <debian@babilen5.org>

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #373 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:24:16 +0100

On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hello,

> In summary:
> a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
> kept.
> b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default init with a debconf
> message about alternative init systems.
> 
> More detailed:
> 1) Fix debootstrap bugs
> 2) Add a (non-aborting) debconf message referring to release-notes on
> how to install sysvinit-core when installing from scratch.
> 3) Add information in release-notes on how to:
> - Upgrade from stable/testing/sid to jessie to avoid getting
> systemd-sysv installed (this should not strictly be needed if the ctte
> chooses to decide that upgrades will _not_ switch init)
> - Install sysvinit-core after installation and reboot after getting
> systemd-sysv as default.
> 
> 3.1) I'll file a bug against release-notes as written above.

Hopefully the ctte will make a decision on init system for upgrades to
Jessie today!

FYI: Bugs for release-notes on upgrades, #771825, and installation-guide
(and perhaps debian wiki) on new installs (pending), are in the pipe!

Message #378 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de>

To: <762194@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:25:26 +0100

Dear ctte,

after having watched this discussion from the sidelines a bit, I'd
like to offer a few thoughts on this topic.

First of all, as for the technical issue of how to NOT cause the init
system to be switched when updating from wheezy to jessie: all
proposed solution I've seen in this thread don't appear to be helpful:

 - Switchig depends order of init [1]
   (sysvinit-core before systemd-sysv)

    -> won't work, because init is Essential, but systemd-sysv isn't,
       so this change would default the init system to sysvinit for
       jessie (which is against the TC ruling from earlier this year,
       so unless you'd want to overrule that... ;-))

 - Adding sysvinit to dependencies of init [2]
   (Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart)

    -> won't work, becaues the sysvinit package in Jessie is just
       transitional (co-installable with any init system) and
       contains two files: /lib/sysvinit/init and
       /lib/sysvinit/telinit

    -> this means that /sbin/init wouldn't be provided anymore
       (systems won't boot)

    -> also, this is a dependency loop (sysvinit Pre-Depends on
       init in jessie, to make sure the init metapackage is always
       installed on updates) Don't know what the effect of that
       would be

    -> of course, one could add
       Depends: sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv | upstart
       to sysvinit in Jessie, but with the experience I've had testing
       dependency resolvers recently, I wouldn't trust that all
       dependency resolvers will be able to properly process this,
       especially for people that are already running jessie now with
       the current set of dependencies

 - Obviously, if this had been discussed earlier, a different package
   structure could have been chosen in the first place, but that ship
   has sailed...

 - (Have I missed something?)

Therefore, for the sake of discussion, I'd like to show a different
mechanism by which the switch could be avoided. Note that I do not
propose that you actually do this (I'm unsure about the correct
decision on this topic, see below), I only want to show that there is
indeed a sane possibility to achieve this.

The main advice for user's upgrading that want to keep sysvinit is
currently to install the sysvinit-core package before actually
upgrading the rest of the system. Therefore, this behavior could be
leveraged by introducing a trivial empty package 'sysvinit-core' to
wheezy and make 'sysvinit' in wheezy depend on it.

I've tried this with the following patch to wheezy's (!) sysvinit
package:

======================================================================
--- old/debian/control 2013-07-14 19:19:01.000000000+0200
+++ new/debian/control 2014-12-04 15:14:16.569409781+0100
@@ -26,7 +26,9 @@
 # For ischroot
  debianutils (>= 4),
 # Required for TERM=xterm switch (see #605777)
- kbdcontrol (>= 8.2+ds2-6) [kfreebsd-any]
+ kbdcontrol (>= 8.2+ds2-6) [kfreebsd-any],
+# For jessie upgrades
+ sysvinit-core
 Description: System-V-like init utilities
  This package contains programs required for booting
  a Debian system and doing basic process management.
@@ -50,6 +52,15 @@
  Specifically, this package includes:
  killall5, last, lastb, mesg, pidof, service, sulogin

+Package: sysvinit-core
+Architecture: any
+Description: System-V-like init utilities
+ This package is a transitional package to facilitate transitions to
+ Debian 8 (jessie).
+ .
+ The consequence of this package is that updates to the next Debian
+ version will not change the init system.
+
 Package: sysv-rc
 Architecture: all
 Recommends: lsb-base (>= 3.2-14)
======================================================================

This has the following consequences:

 - wheezy systems running sysvinit will not switch init systems on
   upgrade (tested with apt-get and aptitude on the command line),
   i.e. keep sysvinit as init system

 - wheezy systems running systemd-sysv (forced removal of sysvinit
   essential package) will also keep their current init system, in
   this case systemd

 - jessie systems are unaffected, because this change is in wheezy

Therefore, if you really want to prevent init system changes from
wheezy to jessie, given the current state of affairs, this appears to
be the sanest solution, at least from a technical standpoint.
Obviously, this is someting that should probably be discussed with
the release team first, if you really intend to go that route. And
obviously, you should keep in mind that this will then only work for
people who keep their wheezy systems up-to-date.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/<20141122132116.GB14518@angband.pl>
[2] 
https://lists.debian.org/<CALZWFRJ_Qv1vPWRCvTR7hAkJ1ivw8nn_dMZP8H1Q8XkBBZk-AA@mail.gmail.com>



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Second part of this email: Having said that, a few thoughts on the
question of switching init systems:

Arguments FOR switching on upgrade:

     + it shouldn't matter whether you upgrade your system or freshly
       install it, so the init system should be the same unless the
       user explicitly wants another (which they can do in either
       case)

     + related to the first point: user support: support for Debian
       users might be more difficult otherwise, especially for people
       who don't care about their init system and don't realize that
       the fact that they upgraded made their installation different
       from a freshly installed one

     + systemd is considered better by the Debian project (in the
       sense that it has been decided to be default and nobody
       challenged that) - and users should get that, regardless of
       their path to jessie, unless they specifically object to it

          - counter to that: as we see with the backlash, some people
            consider systemd to be a really, really bad idea, and not
            at all better than sysvinit

Arguments AGAINST switching on upgrade:

     - principle of least surprise: some people may not expect their
       system to work differently after an upgrade

          + counter to that: other core parts of the system have also
            been replaced in the past (devfs -> udev, etc.)

                - counter to that: those had less of an impact on the
                  administrator than systemd

                       + counter to that: udev, really? also: ELF,
                         libc6, ...

          + there are release notes for people who care, and ways to
            avoid that

     - upgrade safety: some local setups may rely on sysvinit behavior
       implicitly, for example:

       * /etc/inittab modifications (not considered by systemd)
       * custom /etc/init.d scripts that don't properly with
         systemd (for example, due to wrong exit codes)
       * /etc/fstab vs. nofail vs. emergency shell

          + counter to that: there are people working on detecting
            these issues and providing information in postinst scripts
            for this issue

          + counter to that: past upgrades have always had some kind
            of breaking of local configurations, even if it was just
            a new software version

     - other Debian defaults have also not been switched (MTA, syslog,
       etc.)

Another bit of food for thought:

Let's say for jessie+2 the situation is reverse: systemd is the
default, but the new default is supposed to be awesomeinitd, (yet to
be written ;-)) because that turned out to be much better than
systemd. Would you want to the default init system to switch then?

    - if you think the default init should not be switched then, why
      is wheezy->jessie different?
           - is it because wheezy didn't really have a choice what
             your init system was going to be (without removing
             essential packages at least, and TBH, systemd in wheezy
             was not quite ready for production yet)? But why should
             that matter?
           - or you don't think it's different, and then you would
             want to keep sysvinit for wheezy->jessie

    - if you think the default init should be switched then, I think
      the current dependencies of the 'init' package in jessie are
      wrong. Because then any upgrade from jessie to a later version
      with a changed dependency order of the 'init' metapackage will
      NOT cause another init system to be installed (unless the one
      you've been using in jessie has been removed), but will in fact
      ensure that the current init will be kept

      - so if in fact you'd want to switch init systems by default on
        the next upgrade, the proper dependencies for the 'init'
        metapackage should probably be something like
        Depends: default-init | systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
        And 'default-init' should depend on just 'systemd-sysv'.
        => Then, for the next time the init system changes,
           'default-init' could just be changed to the new init
           system, and people who'd want to keep systemd anyway would
           just remove the 'default-init' package.
        (Note this is completely untested, just thinking out loud, so
        maybe this won't work anyway.)

      - or you'd have to have the new Debian release have a completely
        new set of packages that replace the current ones that kind
        of make this work anyway (which is probably not impossible,
        but probably also quite difficult to figure out)

Finally, on a more social level, I haven't seen many Debian members
that would be directly affected by such a decision participating in
this discussion, so it might be a good idea to reach out to the
relevant people before deciding that issue.

Christian

Message #383 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:21:45 +0100

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:25:26PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
>  - Switchig depends order of init [1]
>    (sysvinit-core before systemd-sysv)
> 
>     -> won't work, because init is Essential, but systemd-sysv isn't,
>        so this change would default the init system to sysvinit for
>        jessie (which is against the TC ruling from earlier this year,
>        so unless you'd want to overrule that... ;-))

That's why in my proposal the installation of systemd-sysv by default is
moved to debootstrap.

In scripts/{unstable,jessie}, function work_out_debs(), you add
"systemd-sysv" to the variable "required".  This can be done
unconditionally, or, preferably, only in the "-" variant, as other variants
either don't use init at all or are unbootable with systemd.  And in some
use cases like pbuilder or non-lvm/btrfs sbuild size gains are important:
it takes longer to unpack the tarball than to build an average package.

I did test the following change:
=====================
work_out_debs () {
        required="$(get_debs Priority: required)"
== to ===
work_out_debs () {
        required="$(get_debs Priority: required) systemd-sysv"
=====================
and it does what you want.

On the other hand, relying on an upload to wheezy is quite fragile.

Also, it is intuitive to keep changes to the default install in debootstrap
rather than in dependencies.  And it makes future changes of the default
easy without breaking existing systems.


As for reasons not to switch, you did not mention the multitude of "breaks
the whole system" (ie, severity:critical) bugs in common configurations.
These include:
* vservers/containers
* chroots that run daemons
* some configurations of encrypted lvm
* custom kernels (including those you can't upgrade)
* nonexistant filesystems in fstab (this one is being worked on)
* etc, etc.

Thus, the potential for breakage is simply too big.  This is similar, but
bigger in scope than the grub1->grub2 switch some years ago.

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Message #388 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:22:24 -0500

Thanks.
I found this post of your to be really thought-provoking and useful and
an example of the sort of discourse we should strive to when discussing
these issues.
I think the discussion of switching default inits in the future is
something to particularly consider.

--Sam

Message #393 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de>

To: <kilobyte@angband.pl>, <762194@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:55:24 +0100

Sorry, stupid webmail, sent my email to early...
and only to the mailing list, not the bugtracker... :(

To make sure it's recorded in the bug, and I also added something to
the end:

Am 2014-12-04 19:31, schrieb Christian Seiler:
> Am 2014-12-04 18:21, schrieb Adam Borowski:
>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:25:26PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
>>>  - Switchig depends order of init [1]
>>>    (sysvinit-core before systemd-sysv)
>>>
>>>     -> won't work, because init is Essential, but systemd-sysv 
>>> isn't,
>>>        so this change would default the init system to sysvinit for
>>>        jessie (which is against the TC ruling from earlier this 
>>> year,
>>>        so unless you'd want to overrule that... ;-))
>>
>> That's why in my proposal the installation of systemd-sysv by 
>> default is
>> moved to debootstrap.
>
> Unfortunately, that has its own set of problems. People want to be
> able to bootstrap jessie from other distributions, and from previous
> Debian versions (which is why an update to debootstrap was accepted
> into s-p-u recently to fix a bug so that jessie could be bootstrapped
> from jessie, see [1]).
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768444
>
> Note that there is also cdebootstrap, which you'd also have to
> modify, and I honestly don't know what some other tools that can
> install Debian use internally do.
>
>> Also, it is intuitive to keep changes to the default install in 
>> debootstrap
>> rather than in dependencies.  And it makes future changes of the 
>> default
>> easy without breaking existing systems.
>
> With the init metapackage, if it stays the way it is, then this is
> not the case - because a change in the init metapackage order will
> not affect existing systems anymore, it will just affect new systems.
> So instead of hardcoding behavior in debootstrap, dependencies are
> precisely the right way to go, in my eyes.
>
>> As for reasons not to switch, you did not mention the multitude of 
>> "breaks
>> the whole system" (ie, severity:critical) bugs in common 
>> configurations.
>> These include:
>> * vservers/containers
>
> If you look at what most container solutions do in order to 'support'
> current systems, they override quite a lot of the init script logic
> in order not to do stuff they shouldn't do. With the current state of
> things, I never had the expectation that dist-upgrading a container
> would even remotely work, and I've never tried that.
>
> Note that containers have been painful for upgrades anyway, since
> Etch/Lenny had VServer and something else, Squeeze still had VServer
> but only if using the official kernel, if your hardware required you
> to use a backports kernel, then you couldn't use VServer anymore. In
> with Squeeze came LXC as a possible alternative, but when it came to
> Wheezy, subtle stuff changed again (e.g. /run directory, especially
> if you wanted to run the container without CAP_SYS_ADMIN).
>
> Also: jessie will be the first version of Debian that will have a
> kernel that supports unpriviledged (user namespace) containers. That
> alone is something worth reinvestigating the current setup for.
>
> So my expectation for containers has always been: build it again on
> the new operating system version, and then migrate the data over.
>
> In fact, systemd actually gives me hope that this might not be the
> case anymore in the not-too-distant future. For jessie it probably
> won't work that way yet, but for stretch onwards (read: strech ->
> buster upgrades) I really am hopeful that it will finally be possible
> to just upgrade your container and everything will just work[tm].
> Which has never been my experience so far.
>
>> * chroots that run daemons
>
> What do you mean? systemd supports daemons with chroot just fine,
> either directly (RootDirectory=) or even using traditional init
> scripts.
>
>> * some configurations of encrypted lvm
>
> Could you point me to a bug report on this? I'd like to help out with
> that. I have systemd running on my home computer with an encrypted
> LVM, and it does work, so what you are referencing is probably a
> nasty bug that could be fixed.
>
>> * custom kernels (including those you can't upgrade)
>
> That is indeed a problem.
>
>> * nonexistant filesystems in fstab (this one is being worked on)
>
> I did mention that in my email.
>
>> Thus, the potential for breakage is simply too big.  This is 
>> similar, but
>> bigger in scope than the grub1->grub2 switch some years ago.
>
> Well, in the end, it comes down to priorities, as to how much 
> breakage
people consider acceptable, in contrast to the other upsides and
downsides of the change. I don't think it is unreasonable that some
people come down on the other side of this issue.

As I said in my first email, I don't think there is an easy answer
here.

Christian

Message #398 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:05:57 +0100

]] Christian Seiler 

> Am 2014-12-04 18:21, schrieb Adam Borowski:
>
> > * some configurations of encrypted lvm
> 
> Could you point me to a bug report on this? I'd like to help out with
> that. I have systemd running on my home computer with an encrypted
> LVM, and it does work, so what you are referencing is probably a
> nasty bug that could be fixed.

I believe Adam refers to the fact that the cryptsetup support in systemd
doesn't support keyscript= in crypttab.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #403 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>

To: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Cc: 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Debian has abandoned many users also on upgrades by the CTTE decision on December 4 2014

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:31:06 +0100

Hello,

Looking at the IRC log
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/tree/meetings/20141204/debian-ctte.2014-12-04-18.00.log.txt
lines 197 to 280 reveals the plan.

Conclusion: quoting <vorlon> Steve Langasek: "we recommend/support
systemd being the default init system for upgrades as well as new
installs"

Action point: quoting <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong:
"#action dondelelcaro to draft affirmative resolution on #762194 noting
#757298 et al"

More details: (if using apt, see also #757298 about the grub2 entry)

- upgrading from Wheezy/with sysvinit to Jessie can boot with  
init=/lib/sysvinit/init unless/until the sysvinit package is removed by
e.g. autoclean. 

CAUTION: don't autoclean until you have installed sysvinit-core if you
don't want systemd-sysv!

- dist-upgrading Wheezy/with sysvinit to Jessie will get systemd-sysv,
and sysvinit will be history!! (unless you install sysvinit-core on next
reboot (if your system boots))

- grub will obtain a menu entry to boot with init=/lib/sysvinit/init if
something goes wrong with the switch to systemd-sysv (unless you
dist-upgrade). If you are using some other bootloader, e.g. LILO you are
on your own.

- people not careful enough are on their own: quote from Tollef Fog Heen
"at some point, it's the user shooting their foot off"

I wonder what the people not having physical access, e.g. ssh, to their
boxes should do, not even able the see the boot screen?

Very nice conclusions and actions ;)

Message #408 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Debian has abandoned many users also on upgrades by the CTTE decision on December 4 2014

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:30:51 +0100

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:31:06PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Looking at the IRC log
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/tree/meetings/20141204/debian-ctte.2014-12-04-18.00.log.txt
> lines 197 to 280 reveals the plan.
> 
> Conclusion: quoting <vorlon> Steve Langasek: "we recommend/support
> systemd being the default init system for upgrades as well as new
> installs"
> 
> Action point: quoting <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong:
> "#action dondelelcaro to draft affirmative resolution on #762194 noting
> #757298 et al"

I think the key point is:
18:50:04 <dondelelcaro> so for this bug, I'm happier that we actually have
concrete proposals, though I don't think any of them have had enough testing
18:50:29 <ansgar> I think two had issues with installing sysvinit in some
cases.
18:50:39 <ansgar> And the last one just arrived ~2 hours ago.
18:51:57 <ansgar> First proposal in 762194#124, I tested it in #142

which shows confusion as to whether the proposal works.  The idea is to move
the piece responsible for defaulting to systemd from pkg:init to
pkg:debootstrap -- and a move consists of two changes: removing in place A
then adding in place B.  What ansgar tested in #142 is removing only, with
obvious results.  I did try to dispel this confusion but this apparently
hasn't been noticed.

> More details: (if using apt, see also #757298 about the grub2 entry)
> 
> - upgrading from Wheezy/with sysvinit to Jessie can boot with  
> init=/lib/sysvinit/init unless/until the sysvinit package is removed by
> e.g. autoclean. 
[...]
> I wonder what the people not having physical access, e.g. ssh, to their
> boxes should do, not even able the see the boot screen?

They'll have a nice drive to the data center... or, for embedded systems,
some extra fun of wildly varying kinds.

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Message #413 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:10 -0800

I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
discussion.

Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.

==BEGIN==

In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
§6.1.4 to override the decision of the init package maintainers to
depend on systemd-sysv as the first alternative dependency, thus
ensuring both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
   init system in Debian. 

2. In <87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no>[1], the maintainers of the init
   package announced their transition plan for migrating to systemd as
   the default init system on both installs and new upgrades.

==OPTION A==

Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:

3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
   maintainers to transition to systemd by default.

4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
   any issues with the transition by:

   a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
   default init in grub (#757298)

   b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
   configurations which are unsupported in systemd.

   c) Providing documentation on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on
   both initial installs and upgrades.

   d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
   the systemd migration in their configurations.



1: https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no

==END==

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I 
realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked
Him to forgive me.
 -- Emo Philips.

Message #418 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:48:53 -0800

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:10 -0800 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.

A few comments below.

> ==BEGIN==
> 
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
> §6.1.4 to override the decision of the init package maintainers to
> depend on systemd-sysv as the first alternative dependency, thus
> ensuring both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194.  #762194 was
not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
"init" to change the alternative order.  The TC was more generally
debating whether the switch to systemd as the default included a switch
of existing systems to systemd, and if not, how to only switch for new
systems and not for upgrades (for which the TC solicited proposals).
Changing the init package dependencies (and changing debootstrap, d-i,
etc to install systemd-sysv for new installs) was one possible
implementation of the latter.

Here's an opening paragraph that seems clearer to me about the overall
purpose of the bug report and this statement:

"""
In #762194, the Technical Committee considered whether upgrades of
existing systems should continue to switch to systemd by default, or
retain their init system (with only new installs getting systemd by
default).
"""

> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian. 
> 
> 2. In <87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no>[1], the maintainers of the init
>    package announced their transition plan for migrating to systemd as
>    the default init system on both installs and new upgrades.

Possible addition, for clarity: "The packages in jessie implement this
transition plan."

> ==OPTION A==
> 
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> 
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default.

For clarity: "to transition upgraded systems to systemd by default, not
just new installs."

> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
> 
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
> 
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
>    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.

I would change this from "non-standard inittab configurations" to "uses
of /etc/inittab".  They're not non-standard; it's not incredibly common
to modify inittab to launch services or add consoles, but it's not by
any means non-standard.  I don't want to see anyone (such as a sysadmin
of a system with such a configuration) taking this TC statement as a
comment on the appropriateness of such inittab configuration.

Also, you might want to include a link here.  The mechanism was being
developed in a thread in #765803, but that's not the subject of that
bug, and that bug doesn't seem like the right place for it.  Thus, I've
re-posted the WIP code to a systemd bug, #761063.

>    c) Providing documentation on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on
>    both initial installs and upgrades.

Nitpick: "on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on upgrades, or switch
to sysvinit for new installs".  (Also, "how to opt to remain with" seems
awkward; perhaps "how to keep using"?)

>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.

One potential addition:

5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
   maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included in
   jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.

(Since neither (a) nor (b) above has actually made it into jessie, or
unstable for that matter.)

That said, such advice may be unnecessary and superfluous; I'd hope
that's already the plan.

> 1: https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no

I would suggest inlining this reference in the relevant paragraph, or at
least making it a footnote right after that paragraph, rather than an
endnote.

- Josh Triplett

Message #423 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:35:32 -0800

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194. #762194 was
> not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
> "init" to change the alternative order.

Well, more specifically, it was to override the transition plan (namely,
to transition installs to systemd by default upon upgrade) which the
maintainers of the init package had already proposed and implemented.

I've clarified this, and adopted the other changes:

In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
§6.1.4 to override the transition plan of the init package maintainers
to have both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
   init system in Debian. 

2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
   maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
   migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
   and new upgrades.

3. The init package currently in jessie implements this transition.

==OPTION A==

Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:

3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
   maintainers to transition to systemd by default.

4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
   any issues with the transition by:

   a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
   default init in grub (#757298)

   b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
   are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)

   c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
   upgrades and swithc to sysvinit upon installation.

   d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
   the systemd migration in their configurations.

5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
   maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
   in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.


-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

"Ban cryptography! Yes. Let's also ban pencils, pens and paper, since
criminals can use them to draw plans of the joint they are casing or
even, god forbid, create one time pads to pass uncrackable codes to
each other. Ban open spaces since criminals could use them to converse
with each other out of earshot of the police. Let's ban flags since
they could be used to pass secret messages in semaphore. In fact let's
just ban all forms of verbal and non-verbal communication -- let's see
those criminals make plans now!"

Message #428 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:05:47 -0800

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:35:32 -0800 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > This doesn't seem like an accurate description of #762194. #762194 was
> > not specificlaly a request for the TC to override the maintainers of
> > "init" to change the alternative order.
> 
> Well, more specifically, it was to override the transition plan (namely,
> to transition installs to systemd by default upon upgrade) which the
> maintainers of the init package had already proposed and implemented.

Fair enough.  I just didn't want the statement to reference any specific
technical proposal for doing so, especially when not advocating that
proposal (and not incorporating the additional changes that such a
proposal would require, such as to debootstrap or d-i).

> I've clarified this, and adopted the other changes:
> 
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
> §6.1.4 to override the transition plan of the init package maintainers
> to have both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

I'd used "the Technical Committee considered" rather intentionally in
the wording I suggested, to avoid any of the controversy around "was
asked" from the previous last decision.  Not going to push for that,
just pointing it out as intentional.

> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian. 
> 
> 2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
>    maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
>    migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
>    and new upgrades.
> 
> 3. The init package currently in jessie implements this transition.

While it's a bit of a nitpick, the transition plan involves more than
just the init package; it also includes the sysvinit packages (sysvinit
and sysvinit-core).  Perhaps s/package/packages/ (and
s/implements/implement/), since "init packages" logically includes
sysvinit, systemd, and other init system packages?

> ==OPTION A==
> 
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> 
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default.

I'd suggested clarifying that this applies to both upgraded systems and
new installs.  Thoughts on that clarification?  (Given that this
additional TC deliberation and statement occurred specifically because
the original decision in #727708 did not specify upgrades versus new
installs, spelling that out explictly in the statement and not just in
the frontmatter seems preferable.)

> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
> 
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
> 
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
>    are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)
> 
>    c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
>    upgrades and swithc to sysvinit upon installation.

Typo: s/swithc/switch/

>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.
> 
> 5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
>    maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
>    in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.

Thank you for adding this.

- Josh Triplett

Message #433 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:07:27 -0800

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'd used "the Technical Committee considered" rather intentionally in
> the wording I suggested, to avoid any of the controversy around "was
> asked" from the previous last decision. Not going to push for that,
> just pointing it out as intentional.

We really were asked, as the CTTE itself doesn't decide to consider
something. I've tweaked the wording slightly.

> While it's a bit of a nitpick, the transition plan involves more than
> just the init package

The groundwork for it was already there thanks to Steve's work; the
transition plan was really just the init package. But since it doesn't
hurt anything, modified.

> I'd suggested clarifying that this applies to both upgraded systems
> and new installs. Thoughts on that clarification?

Sure; it seems obvious to me, but since it's what I mean, clarified.

> Typo: s/swithc/switch/

Fixed, thanks.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Who is thinking this?
I am.
 -- Greg Egan _Diaspora_ p38

Message #438 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:11:12 -0800

Thanks for the updates; the current version in debian-ctte git (as of
commit e43bfb9cd1f6316ed01a58a4a248e82fc3825850) looks good to me.

- Josh Triplett

Message #443 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 20:25:55 -0800

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
>
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
>
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
>    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.

Does this deliberately say just inittab instead of something like
"non-compatible configurations"? I believe (and hope) that similar
mechanism are planned in particular for fstab and crypttab.


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Message #448 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 20:53:05 -0800

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:

> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
> >    any issues with the transition by:
> >
> >    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
> >    default init in grub (#757298)
> >
> >    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
> >    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.
> 
> Does this deliberately say just inittab instead of something like
> "non-compatible configurations"?

Yes.

> I believe (and hope) that similar mechanism are planned in particular
> for fstab and crypttab.

It would be awesome if they are; I'd like to point to specific bugs for
these if you're aware of them. [My motivation here is to try to get
people who have these kinds of setups to participate in those bugs.]

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
 -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ 
 [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_]

Message #453 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 22:03:00 -0800

[ Resending to bug address rather than just ctte list ]

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
>> > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>> >    any issues with the transition by:
>> >
>> >    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>> >    default init in grub (#757298)
>> >
>> >    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
>> >    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.
>> 
>> Does this deliberately say just inittab instead of something like
>> "non-compatible configurations"?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I believe (and hope) that similar mechanism are planned in particular
>> for fstab and crypttab.
>
> It would be awesome if they are; I'd like to point to specific bugs for
> these if you're aware of them. [My motivation here is to try to get
> people who have these kinds of setups to participate in those bugs.]

Not sure if I understand you correctly, because they're easy enough to
find. But anyway, here are some examples:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751707
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=771492
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618862
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747258
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765594

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Message #458 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stephen Lyons <slysven@virginmedia.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: An end-users perspective on an automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:11:59 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Can I offer the view of a concerned end-user here?

I have worries about the proposal to force me to change from a sysV init
system about which I'm still learning things despite first starting with
GNU/Linux perhaps twenty years ago, to a new-fangled systemd system
that, to me, does not (yet) seem stable and which possesses significant
gaps in functionality especially in regards to non-main stream
configurations.

Over time one of the features that attracted me to Debian was the
conservative but robust attitude it had compared to some other
distributions - you won't necessarily get the latest bells and whistles
but you could get a well tested and relatively stable platform.  For
that reason - and the fact that I'm not running bleeding edge hardware -
I would wish to choose not to adopt sure a core component {and from what
I've read of it today its developers do seem to want it to be *the* core
component on many linux systems} as systemd until either there was
absolutely no other choice or it was pretty much foolproof.  At this
time I can't see either of these being the case.

For new system installs, yes I can see that it might be reasonable to
try as a default - generally a new system install is either going to be
someone trying a *nix OS for the first time or someone who is preparing
to change from another distribution.  In those cases the user is not
going to have data and configuration already present or they will have
taken steps to save what they want to transplant from one setup to
another.  If, for some reason, things don't work out they likely to have
an alternative direction to try.  For upgrades, it is a different kettle
of worms, the user has tweaked things to their likings and will have
some, if not a lot, of data that they want to hang on to; they may be
willing to try some new features or changes if those enhances their user
experience but they won't necessarily want to throw the baby out with
the bathwater.  A default upgrade path that has even just a small chance
of leaving them with an unbootable system and with, I suspect, no quick
and easy way to backout from does not seem the optimum choice!

A concerned Debian Wheezy(-backports) User

Stephen Lyons

P.S. I'm speaking also as someone who got clobbered by an Xorg server
upgrade earlier this week - still not entirely sure what went wrong but
glad I only upgraded one machine at a time because a blank Xserver
screen on a machine not accepting keyboard/mouse input is no use to
anyone.  Sorta got it back into life but udev/dbus and networking no
longer start automatically on bootup, stopping gmd3 no longer kills the
X server it sometimes manages to spawn which stalls indefinitely
expecting data from the non-existent udev - and I wasted a whole day
getting back to THAT state.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #463 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: An end-users perspective on an automatic switch to systemd on wheezy->jessie upgrades

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 00:18:24 -0500

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Stephen Lyons wrote:
> Can I offer the view of a concerned end-user here?
>
> I have worries about the proposal to force me to change from a sysV init
> system about which I'm still learning things despite first starting with
> GNU/Linux perhaps twenty years ago, to a new-fangled systemd system
> that, to me, does not (yet) seem stable and which possesses significant
> gaps in functionality especially in regards to non-main stream
> configurations.

No matter what the TC decides, there will be no "forcing" involved.

Yes, if the user hasn't been paying attention and doesn't take action
beforehand, the init after upgrade will by default be systemd (and
aterwards, systemd-sysv can be removed to revert that anyway).

However, for attentive users, apt pinning systemd-sysv at something
like -1 priority will prevent any change in init system.  I tried this
yesterday.  It just works.

Best wishes,
Mike

Message #468 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org, 765803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Please consider declining (was: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194)

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:21:49 -0500

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.
>
> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
> don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.
>
> ==BEGIN==
>
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under
> §6.1.4 to override the decision of the init package maintainers to
> depend on systemd-sysv as the first alternative dependency, thus
> ensuring both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default.
>
> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian.
>
> 2. In <87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no>[1], the maintainers of the init
>    package announced their transition plan for migrating to systemd as
>    the default init system on both installs and new upgrades.
>
> ==OPTION A==
>
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
>
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default.
>
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
>
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
>
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab
>    configurations which are unsupported in systemd.
>
>    c) Providing documentation on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on
>    both initial installs and upgrades.
>
>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.

Thanks to the init system topic, the technical committee's political
capital is metaphorically on empty [0].  More activity in this area,
of any type, is very likely to cause more harm than good.

Abstention is likely the wisest option currently available; given that
rolling the dice on another resolution could consume those scant
remaining fumes.  Even if the resolution itself sounds a lot like the
status quo, there is still huge risk that it will annoy at least
someone (consuming more capital of course and producing more
negativity in the project) whereas abstention, as a signal to the
project that further design by committee may be coming to an end, will
not.

So, with that said, I would like to suggest that the committee
consider declining further init system arbitration acts, starting by
closing the two currently open tech-ctte bugs as declined.

Please consider instead allowing the currently binding TC init system
arbitrations to stand; including the automatic switching statement
from last month [1], which defers the evolution of solutions to
project contributors working on actual technical changes.

Also, as a modest proposal, when circumstance allows, please consider
that impeding said technical progress [2] consumes political capital
as well and that the wisdom of a helping hand may produce a far more
positive impact on the project.

Best wishes,
Mike

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/12/msg00041.html
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/773895

Message #473 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:36:30 +0000

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
> 
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)

For the committee's information, this is now in place in unstable and
will hopefully be in testing soon (unblock request: #774939).

Indeed, it seemed most appropriate to provide boot entries for any
installed alternative init daemon, so this will also for example be
usable for users considering a migration to systemd but wanting a
convenient way to test it out first.  Given the existence of grub-reboot
which allows changing the default entry for only the next boot, this
potentially gives you a fairly reasonable way to try things out even
remotely.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Message #478 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:22:59 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
> discussion.

> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
> don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.

Sorry to take so long in replying.  The current draft from git is:

==BEGIN==

In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to consider the
transition plan of the init package maintainers to have both new
installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
   init system in Debian. 

2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
   maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
   migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
   and new upgrades.

3. The init package (and other related packages) currently in jessie
   implement this transition.

==OPTION A==

Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:

3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
   maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
   install systemd by default on new installs.

4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
   any issues with the transition by:

   a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
   default init in grub (#757298)

   b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
   are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)

   c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
   upgrades and switch to sysvinit upon installation.

   d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
   the systemd migration in their configurations.

5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
   maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
   in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.

==END==

I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
warranted from my side.  I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
are.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #483 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:56:41 -0800

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> warranted from my side.  I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> are.

I call for a vote on the following resolution to 762194:

==BEGIN==

In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to consider the
transition plan of the init package maintainers to have both new
installs and upgrades use systemd by default.

1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
   init system in Debian. 

2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
   maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
   migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
   and new upgrades.

3. The init package (and other related packages) currently in jessie
   implement this transition.

==OPTION A==

Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:

3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
   maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
   install systemd by default on new installs.

4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
   any issues with the transition by:

   a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
   default init in grub (#757298)

   b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
   are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)

   c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
   upgrades and switch to sysvinit upon installation.

   d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
   the systemd migration in their configurations.

5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
   maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
   in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.

==END==


-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Three little words. (In order of importance.)
 █████     
   █      ▌  ▞▀▖▌ ▌▛▀▘
   █      ▌  ▌ ▌▝▞ ▛▀      you 
   █      ▀▀▘▝▀  ▘ ▀▀▘
 █████  -- hugh macleod "Three Words"

Message #488 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:18:14 -0500

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10:10AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for
>> discussion.
>
>> Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I
>> don't believe we should call for votes until that happens.
>
> Sorry to take so long in replying.  The current draft from git is:
>
> ==BEGIN==
>
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to consider the
> transition plan of the init package maintainers to have both new
> installs and upgrades use systemd by default.
>
> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian.
>
> 2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
>    maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
>    migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
>    and new upgrades.
>
> 3. The init package (and other related packages) currently in jessie
>    implement this transition.
>
> ==OPTION A==
>
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
>
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
>    install systemd by default on new installs.
>
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
>
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
>
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
>    are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)
>
>    c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
>    upgrades and switch to sysvinit upon installation.
>
>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.
>
> 5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
>    maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
>    in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.
>
> ==END==
>
> I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> warranted from my side.  I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> are.

Why?  Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
what's the point?

What possibly is there to gain from further init system meddling just
when the clouds were clearing?

Best wishes,
Mike

Message #493 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:21:47 -0800

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I call for a vote on the following resolution to 762194:

[...]

> ==OPTION A==

I vote

A > FD.


-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved
by brute strength and ignorance.
 -- William's Law

Message #498 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:49:19 -0800

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Why? Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
> what's the point?

It affirms the decisions which have been made by the other teams in
Debian, and resolves this particular issue. Issues which are properly
submitted to the CTTE have to be resolved, and the way that they're
resolved is with a resolution.

> What possibly is there to gain from further init system meddling just
> when the clouds were clearing?

I'm unsure how this particular resolution meddles at all with the init
system decision; it explicitly doesn't change anything, and points out
the multiple different ways that Developers have worked to mitigate any
issues with the transition.

If your point is that we shouldn't resolve this issue at all, and should
simply leave the bug open in the BTS, I disagree completely.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept.
 -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_]

Message #503 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:56:50 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe this covers everything I was concerned about, no further edits
> > warranted from my side.  I'm happy for this to be called to a vote if you
> > are.

> I call for a vote on the following resolution to 762194:

> ==BEGIN==
> 
> In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to consider the
> transition plan of the init package maintainers to have both new
> installs and upgrades use systemd by default.
> 
> 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default
>    init system in Debian. 
> 
> 2. In https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw.fsf@xoog.err.no, the
>    maintainers of the init package announced their transition plan for
>    migrating to systemd as the default init system on both installs
>    and new upgrades.
> 
> 3. The init package (and other related packages) currently in jessie
>    implement this transition.
> 
> ==OPTION A==
> 
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> 
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
>    install systemd by default on new installs.
> 
> 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate
>    any issues with the transition by:
> 
>    a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the
>    default init in grub (#757298)
> 
>    b) Developing a mechanism to warn on inittab configurations which
>    are unsupported in systemd. (#761063)
> 
>    c) Providing documentation on how to remain with sysvinit on
>    upgrades and switch to sysvinit upon installation.
> 
>    d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested
>    the systemd migration in their configurations.
> 
> 5. The CTTE advises (without overriding any Debian contributor,
>    maintainer, or team) that any such mitigations should be included
>    in jessie, to ensure a smooth transition for Debian users.
> 
> ==END==

I vote A > FD.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #508 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:22:38 -0500

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Why? Option A, i.e. the only option, is already the status quo, so
>> what's the point?
>
> It affirms the decisions which have been made by the other teams in
> Debian, and resolves this particular issue. Issues which are properly
> submitted to the CTTE have to be resolved, and the way that they're
> resolved is with a resolution.
>
>> What possibly is there to gain from further init system meddling just
>> when the clouds were clearing?
>
> I'm unsure how this particular resolution meddles at all with the init
> system decision; it explicitly doesn't change anything, and points out
> the multiple different ways that Developers have worked to mitigate any
> issues with the transition.
>
> If your point is that we shouldn't resolve this issue at all, and should
> simply leave the bug open in the BTS, I disagree completely.

No, my point is that the init system shells loaded into this shotgun
are known to be explosive, already causing mass injury and even
casualty to the project, and there is no reason to think they are any
less volatile today.

Declining to rule is a perfectly legitimate outcome and reason enough
to close this request, but that option unfortunately doesn't exist on
this ballot.

Please consider not pulling the trigger again?

Best wishes,
Mike

Message #513 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:08:28 +0100

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> 
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>    maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
>    install systemd by default on new installs.

What does it mean to affirm a decision, and how is that a
statement?


Kurt

Message #518 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Initial draft of affirming transition to systemd as default for #762194

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:51:56 -0800

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 
> > Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
> > 
> > 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
> >    maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
> >    install systemd by default on new installs.
> 
> What does it mean to affirm a decision,

It literally means that we are saying that we agree with their decision.

> and how is that a statement?

It's a statement because we're just stating that we agree with their
decision, not making the decision for them or overriding their decision.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
 For those who do not, none is possible."

Message #523 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Affirm Transition option wins

Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:47:02 -0800

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I vote
> 
> A > FD.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I vote A > FD.

The 1 week constitutional voting period has now closed; with two votes,
we meet quorum, and option A is the winner.

I will announce this in the near future.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien
a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher.
(Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added,
but when nothing else can be removed.)
 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes

Message #528 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#762194: Affirm Transition option wins

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:08:34 +0100

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:02AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I vote
> > 
> > A > FD.
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I vote A > FD.
> 
> The 1 week constitutional voting period has now closed; with two votes,
> we meet quorum, and option A is the winner.

To be more correct, option A reaches quorum because there were 2
votes that ranked A above FD.

(I'm assuming that "at least" means >=, not >.)


Kurt

Message #533 received at 762194-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 762194-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: The statement closed this issue

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:19:51 -0700

This issue has been closed by the CTTE statement made a few weeks ago.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it.
 -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Message #542 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx 2Day A.M." <jamie.friedman@web26.extendcp.co.uk>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Problems with item delivery, n.0000979662

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:16:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at March 18. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Delivery Label is attached to this email.

Sincerely,
Jamie Friedman,
Station Manager.

[Delivery_Notification_0000979662.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #547 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International Ground" <brett.elkins@webs3135.aruba.it>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shipment delivery problem #00143055

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:43:12 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

This is to confirm that one or more of your parcels has been shipped.
Shipment Label is attached to email.

Regards,
Brett Elkins,
Delivery Manager.

[FedEx_00143055.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #552 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International Next Flight" <kenneth.glass@runacrossvirginia.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Delivery Notification, ID 00663473

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:07:12 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Warm regards,
Kenneth Glass,
FedEx Station Manager.

[00663473.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #557 received at 762194@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "District Court" <jason.carpenter@vps1.iccsllc.com>

To: 762194@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Notice to Appear

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:30:31 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Notice to Appear,

You have to appear in the Court on the April 19.
Please, do not forget to bring all the documents related to the case.
Note: The case may be heard by the judge in your absence if you do not come.

You can review complete details of the Court Notice in the attachment.

Kind regards,
Jason Carpenter,
Clerk of Court.

[Court_Notification_000400131.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.