Re: Init system for non-Linux ports
On 12 February 2014 12:23, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 12:09, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> There are a few reasons to keep sysvinit scripts maintained for jessie:
>> 1. for smoother upgrades from wheezy
>> 2. in order to backport jessie packages to wheezy
>> 3. for non-Linux (or non-systemd) ports
>>
>> So ports are not the only reason. And yet all of the above points still
>> apply to ports; we'd have to support sysvinit even if we went with
>> something else.
>
> If we have to support it anyway, is it really worth spending effort on
> Upstart/OpenRC for Jessie?
>
> IMHO it'd be safer to wait and see where things go. For example, are Upstart
> developers serious about portability or was this just an experiment? Is
> OpenRC going to be adopted by FreeBSD and/or other BSDs?
>
Yes, a few upstart upstream developers are interested in porting to
kFreebsd, and later to Freebsd.
If packages follow the current policy, there shouldn't be much
additional work once upstart is supported on those platforms.
Integration-wise, there will be needed to inspect and/or tweak a few
jobs where things don't match up (e.g. udev <-> devd events).
We didn't start on Hurd yet.
In the best interest of Debian/kFreeBSD, it is probably best to stick
with sysv-init as default for jessie, and have alternatives fully
available by feature freeze such that a switch can be made for
jessie+1.
This is simply because no init alternatives exist on !Debian/Linux in
squeeze already, and e.g. on Debian/Linux upstart/systemd already
exist as working alternatives on squeeze systems.
Out of all the open-source operating systems, i'm yet to see one that
introduce new init and switch to it by default in a single upgrade.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: