Bug#727708: init system discussion status
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
>> I may have lost the thread here, but that doesn't sound quite right.
>> Wouldn't we want to say that each daemon package should implement the
>> native non-forking startup protocol for the default init system, and we
>> would like the maintainer to merge patches for other startup protocols
>> if active maintainers of other init systems ask for this?
> It seems daft to go around making two (or perhaps three or more) patches
> to every daemon when one patch to each daemon, and a couple of
> compatibility modes in the init systems, would suffice.
Okay, it's possible that we just disagree here. Having actually done it,
I don't see any reason not to implement both the upstart and systemd
readiness protocols in a typical daemon. It's not at all hard, and in
most cases one is going to want to implement socket activation on the
systemd side anyway, which makes the readiness protocol mostly irrelevant.
Whether systemd upstream should support the SIGSTOP protocol is certainly
debatable, but I'm very reluctant to support an option that tries to force
the systemd maintainers to support the protocol indefinitely as a
Debian-specific fork. This protocol is not widely used in Debian at the
moment, nor is it widely used upstream, and I think it would be a far
better use of our time to add support for the systemd protocol to upstart.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: