also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2009.08.07.0012 +0200]:
> > Sure, it has compatibility addons, but primarily it conflicts
> > with sysvinit and encourages vendors to provide upstart control
> > files for packages, instead of init.d scripts.
>
> Why in the world does it matter whether it's a compat layer, or if
> it's what the distributor uses for its own work?
>
> Do you advocate throwing away Policy and replacing it with the
> LSB?
No, I certainly don't. I also didn't make myself clear in the last
message.
What I've seen are packages by vendors specifically declared to be
for Ubuntu. That used to suggest to me that they're not willing to
deal with other users and didn't put me off if I needed them on
a Debian system.
However, when I tried to install the package on Debian, it wanted to
pull in upstart and remove sysvinit. No way, not yet.
So I extracted the files to get it working quickly, but had to
discover that it only came with an upstart control file and no
init.d script. It was at that point that I wondered whether we had
just been catapulted back a step.
Hope this clears it up. Again, I think upstart is the right step in
the right direction. I also didn't want to suggest that this is
Scott's or Ubuntu's or Canonical's fault, really. You provided a new
tool and the vendor immediately started using it. In ways that's
an impressive adoption rate. ;)
I suppose there could be stuff in place in upstart to actively
discourage this sort of experimental approach for now.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects:
: :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- john lennon
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)