Bug#727708: Bits from linux.conf.au
Niels Möller [2014-01-15 22:34 +0100]:
> Users should not select a non-default init system lightly. I think it's
> going to be a bit like using the "non-default" kfreebsd or hurd kernel.
> It's not for the average user who wants as much software as possible to
> work as well as possible. It's for the user who is curious, or really
> likes to use or hack that piece of software, or maybe hopes that it's
> going to replace the current default component sometime in the future.
That's not something I'd call "supported" then. So either that
non-default init system does get a certain amount of interest, and
many maintainers add an init script for that system to their packages
-- then there's the additional maintenance/testing/subpar quality
problem for that. Or they don't, and then having that init system
doesn't make much sense in the first place.
> (And it's going to be at least 4 init systems, not 3, right? systemd,
> upstart, sysv and openrc. With support for sysv possibly dropped after a
> few release cycles).
There's no practical way to drop sysv of course, at least as long as
we have non-Linux ports. So this is already 2, and that at least still
has some technical justification. But having more than $DEFAULT and
sysv just boils down to "we can't make a decision".
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
Reply to: