Bug#727708: init system discussion status
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > And the other is that IMO the proposed prescription for non-Linux ports
> > doesn't make sense for systemd. There is little prospect of systemd
> > being "ported" to those systems.
>
> I'd prefer to leave it in. Upstream's opinions aside, systemd is free
> software and if someone wants to try to port it (or, possibly more likely,
> "port" it by writing something native that provides the same interfaces),
> they can. Maybe upstream is right and it's untenable; maybe they're wrong
> and it's not as hard as they think. I realize it's horribly unlikely for
> jessie, but still, as a matter of principle, I'd rather encourage the same
> software or at least the same interfaces across all of our ports.
Personally I think leaving this in makes the resolution look surreal
and out of touch.
> But, anyway, we can focus on the upstart position first and deal with that
> later.
OK.
> This seems fine to me, at least for right now. I'm doing a bit of
> additional research right now to be sure that I understand the
> implications of this and may end up asking for any problems that anyone is
> aware of with this approach, just to be sure we're not missing something.
Right. I looked at the reverse-dependencies of sysvinit in sid and
didn't see anything untoward.
> > I would like to be clear that maintainers don't need to take patches
> > that introduce embedded copies of sd_notify.
>
> Oh, okay. I had missed that aspect of things. I think it's fine to be
> clear about that as long as we're not prohibiting via non-advice TC
> decision using an embedded copy (which feels like bug severity inflation
> to me).
OK. But I will hold off editing 6C for this as we seem to be moving
in a different direction.
Ian.
Reply to: