Debian network-manager: Please restore removed init script

I submitted this as being interesting because I feel it is a turning point in Debian's long init wars.

The most recent Debian General Resolution on init support said something like "we chose systemd but compatibility with other inits is important"

It did not clarify whether a package maintainer was allowed to remove working SysV init support and refuse to add it back, and this is now what is happening here, so I think the end result of this will set a precedent within Debian that the vote did not.

The package maintainer has remained quiet on their reasons other than "this is intentional", which again might be interesting because it might speak to whether the maintainer needs to defend their choices at all.

In a hypothetical situation, if an upstream piece of software specifically states that it doesn't support non-systemd systems then I could see how a maintainer might want to remove previously-contributed support for being a burden on future maintenance. I am not saying this is the case here, I am just saying this could be a possible argument for why it's not a black and white matter.

In Debian package maintainers have a lot of leeway on what goes on within their packages. In other Linux distributions there are often more centralised groups who would make such a decision ahead of time as a broad project goal.

In Debian these decisions can get referred to the technical committee but that is often considered "the nuclear option".

Here's the commit. Unfortunately, there is no explanation in the commit message. Notice that it touches more than the van Smoorenburg rc script.

* https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/network-manager/-/commi...

Michael Biebl, for those unfamiliar with Debian, is one of the maintainers of the network-manager Debian package and of the systemd Debian package, amongst a number of others; and also a contributor to systemd itself.

* https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=biebl%40debian.org

* https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits?author=mbiebl

And this is why, I won't touch Debian anymore. I get enough BS politics and fief building to deal with elsewhere, and if I really want a Debian package, I'll pop the .deb open, and adopt it to my system conventions.

I'm not sold on Debian's "maintainer knows best" attitude. You are not there to make decisions for the community, you are there to ensure the tools people use and want maintained are.

As soon as you lose sight of the "servant" mentality when sitting in a position of authority is about the time a defenestration is in order. The attitude of the maintainer in light of the obvious interest in that feature in that thread, the GR last year, and the lack of any justification whatsoever on the technical merits of the fix, combined with the gall of asserting the project is maintained is ridiculous. I'm legit angry now. If you can't be arsed to do your job, then stop. Stop detracting from the addition of code required to adapt something to work for a wider user base without good contextual justification, which was not provided.

This whole argument is a bullshit argument. I have, somewhat grudgungly I'd admit -- slowly come around to the idea that systemd might be worth the trouble. That said, there is room for more than one working configuration pattern, especially provided those patterns provide non-redundant featuresets to their respective configurations.

The last point of bitterness for me with this entire issue is the entirely uneccesary contention and strife with continuing to include sysV init. It's loved by many and used by many, just leave it alone and let the users patch it.

How the maintainer handles the bug report is weird too, childish even. Not wanting to explain his reasoning and just ignoring it until it's absolutely necessary to do so.

In an internal org, this kind of attitude would be escalated to management. A responsible party for software used by the public doesn't get to say "Because I said so".

inb4 "technically yes they do" - I'm talking about expectation, not capability.

This submission no longer appears at all in the 468 submissions reachable from the front page and ‘More’, but it is not marked [dead] or [flagged].

Crikey; filing an NMU without any particular notice is not the act of someone trying to keep the peace. I'm no expert in Debian policy but surely the good form approach is to submit the patch to the bug report and give the maintainer a week to think about it.

I'd love to see SysV init support continued, but that NMU request isn't helping. Maybe try harder with the negotiating first. There could be context outside the bug report, but hostile maintenance is not the path to take. 4 people complaining in a bug report is no quorum for overruling the package maintainer either.

I don't understand why it needs to be so political. IMO, yes, he shouldn't remove it but there are reasonable alternatives such as another maintainer setting up a network-manager-sysvinit package that just includes the script (like git-daemon-sysvinit) or even an entirely new package such as network-manager-sysv containing the same files and the script. Then everyone can be happy - the said maintainer can live on without sysv and those that want sysv can live on with their specialized package.

I can understand the maintainer saying that they need people to test it because they run systemd and therefore don't have a system running another init system to test on. I can't understand removing working support.

Maybe split the SysV support into another package that is maintained by someone who is able and willing to spend the time testing it under other init systems.

It is sad Debian has devolved to this. Twenty years ago Debian was the guiding light in Linux distros, with principled technical leadership in the space. It is incredible how much damage systemd has caused on the Linux ecosystem.

FWIW Network-manager depends on dbus, and dbus hard depends on systemd for some years now.

Will this be something that downstream maintainers like Ubuntu etc will be able to keep going easily, or will it basically hobble them as well over the next few years?