Bug#727708: loose ends for init system decision
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: loose ends for init system decision"):
>> 6. Debian's non-Linux ports should either use the same init system as
>> Debian's Linux ports or agree on an init system that they're both going
>> to use. The porting work is going to be hard enough without the ports
>> going in different directions on which secondary init system they want
>> to use. I prefer to leave it up to the porters to decide which init
>> system to choose, but I do think OpenRC would be a strong contender.
> Is there some difficulty expected with upstart on hurd ?
I don't know if anyone has looked at it, and in the absence of any
practical experience, I think it's fair to expect some challenges. The
blog post on kFreeBSD porting indicated that the porting effort to date
required eglibc and FreeBSD kernel changes. It seems like a reasonable
assumption that at least a similar level of effort will be required on
Hurd, and I don't know if the Hurd has as mature (if incompatible)
capabilities such as kqueue on FreeBSD to use to implement such things as
inotify or epoll.
I know very little about the Hurd, so basically I just don't know.
> I would be very reluctant to write now that the support for sysvinit, or
> the non-default new system, may be dropped in jessie+1. That will
> result in premature rot and removal.
> It's also possible that some kind of compatibility mechanism will become
> available.
That's a reasonable point. I have no objections to deferring that
decision until after the jessie release.
> I would like to leave this decision to the policy maintainers, with the
> expectation that the TC will probably need to decide.
Yeah, with my Policy hat on, I don't want any piece of that one. I would
be inclined to immediately escalate to the TC. I don't believe that
Policy's conservative consensus approach is going to work here, and I
expect trying to be painful.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: