[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: init system discussion status



Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
> Are you going to vote to overrule a maintainer who says 
> 
>   I have already implemented non-forking readiness protocol X and I
>   think support for all init systems in my daemon should be done via
>   one protocol.  Please do send me a patch for your init system Y task
>   file (and correponding packaging support) when init system Y has
>   support for protocol X.
> 
> ?
> 
> ISTM that if this situation arises it is due to a failure by the init
> system to be sufficiently accomodating.  I would vote to not overrule
> a maintainer in such a situation.

This might prompt of course the question of whether I would vote to
overrule the init system maintainer.

If it were the default init system, certainly.  But I would not want
to have the default init system be one where this was going to be
necessary.  The response from the upstart maintainers to the request
to support the systemd socket activation protocol convinces me this
isn't a problem for upstart.  We know it is a problem with systemd.

For a non-default init system it seems to me that this is a decision
for that init system's community.

Ian.


Reply to: