Bug#727708: loose ends for init system decision
Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
> ]] Russ Allbery
>> Given that, I don't believe a Technical Committee choice of a default
>> init system is going to make either the systemd or the upstart
>> maintainers want to stop maintaining their packages.
> Given what you're basically deciding between is «upstart + castrated
> systemd» or «systemd» and I think I've pretty clearly expressed my
> thoughts on splitting up systemd, I don't know where that conclusion
> comes from.
I have to admit that I didn't give it a whole lot of thought. It was an
assumption based on the presence of both in the archive for some time now
as non-default init systems under sysvinit. In that sense, things don't
change that horribly much, at least up to the jessie release, if the
default changes from one non-systemd thing to another non-systemd thing.
That being said, obviously you should speak for yourself, and I stand
corrected. Apologies for misprepresenting your feelings here.
>> 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.
> I think allowing them to use a compatible init system should be ok too,
> if somebody wants to do that.
Oh, yes, good point. I was thinking more in terms of two different init
systems with different preferred configuration files.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: