Bug#727708: Thoughts on Init System Debate
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2014-01-19 23:18:26 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> As you say that planned features or development could sway your opinion: are
>> there particular features that you have in mind, here? For instance,
>> correcting upstart's socket-based activation interface is on the upstart
>> roadmap in the jessie timeframe.
>
> Showing some progress on issues like
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654 would excite me far
> much more than promises about future features. Not fixing issues
> described as "a fundamental design flaw" by upstart's original author
> for several years, without an inkling of progress, is what's causing
> doubts about upstarts health, at least for me.
I would add the very presence of the "mountall" tool to this
list. Lennart has described the issues with mountall in
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/ip8e1DqJdxT,
and apparently the upstart developers have been aware them as well since
the very beginning (at least since Ubuntu 8.04), yet the mountall
manpage still says
This is a temporary tool until init(8) itself gains the necessary
flexibility to perform this processing; you should not rely on its
behaviour.
Yet no replacement is in sight even after more than 5 years.
Best,
Nikolaus
--
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
Reply to: