Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Thoughts on Init System Debate"):
>> However, moving to a single supported init system with a defined
>interface is something that I would like to see.
>
> If you want that, and you want to keep the non-Linux ports, then I
> think you have to pick upstart as the single supported system.
Look, I completely understand your position with respect to systemd
upstream's attitude about portability patches, but I don't entirely
understand how that leads to an "upstart is the only answer" conclusion.
For example, given your note about what would cause you to re-consider
OpenRC earlier today, I can't help but wonder about the relative
development effort required to add non-forking daemon support to OpenRC
as compared to the effort required to add kfreebsd and hurd support to
upstart? The fact that OpenRC has reportedly already booted on both
kfreebsd and hurd systems certainly intrigues *me*, and copying either
the systemd or upstart approaches to non-forking daemon support in OpenRC
might be plausible?
Perhaps that still wouldn't leave a solution you would personally vote
above upstart, but suggesting the only options are "pick upstart or bail
on non-Linux kernels" just doesn't ring true to me.
Bdale
Attachment:
pgpEpgHuUdIdC.pgp
Description: PGP signature