Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian [and 1 more messages]"):
> However I think it is relevant if we could get an patch integrated to
> support the other protocol as well (means: not replacing the current
> protocol). Which might be a good thing anyways as both protocols have
> their own merits.

Yes, I agree that this is relevant.

> > Also relevant is the response from systemd upstream to the request to
> > support this protocol as an option.  I found it unsatisfactory.
> 
> You mean #732157 / https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833105 ?

Yes.  I agree with the comments from Vincent and Niklaus.  For me,
Zbigniew's response shows where this approach leads and I don't find
it attractive.

I found Lennart's comments tendentious and his complaint about an
admin's potential use of SIGSTOP (during startup) unconvincing (and
easily resolved by the use of (say) SIGTTOU instead).

I don't see the merit in extensibility; or rather, I think that there
is room in the world for a non-extensible but trivial protocol.  (And
there are other potential simple protocols which would be more
extensible.)

Ian.