Hi, Thank you both for inviting comments on this from a porter's POV. Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: >> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup >> interfaces (i.e., init scripts in /etc/init.d). This would be greatly reassuring; if adopting systemd, this is IMHO the primary concern for the non-Linux ports (and of using other init systems on GNU/Linux). I don't know how willing maintainers are to accept it, but I assume there are multiple reasons to still maintain sysvinit scripts in jessie: 1. a smooth upgrade process 2. ease of backporting, perhaps 3. for the benefit of using other init systems on GNU/Linux 4. for the benefit of non-systemd ports If 4. had been the only reason, I think porters would accept some number of packages becoming linux-any, to avoid burdening their maintainers unreasonably. (Similarly, we may yet be unable to support packages requiring logind, if nobody ports it). On 08/02/14 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote: > Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to merge any contributions > for support of init systems other than the Linux default, and to add > that support themselves if they're willing and capable of doing so. > In particular, package maintainers should put a high priority on > merging changes to support any init system which is the default on one > of Debian's non-Linux ports. A quick poll on the debian-bsd@ list showed that if Upstart had been chosen as default on GNU/Linux, it would have been favoured on GNU/kFreeBSD, too. (BTW I'm extremely thankful to Dimitri and any others at Canonical who made efforts to port it). But otherwise, given systemd as default, the overall preference was to keep using sysvinit for jessie (which surprised me, as this wasn't my own preference). In second place would be OpenRC (4:0 over Upstart, again surprising as it is a reversal of the above). https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/01/msg00300.html A draft statement on the debian-hurd@ list asks that sysvinit scripts remain in place, and proposes that GNU/Hurd porters help maintain them, being keen to adopt OpenRC later: https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2014/01/msg00051.html This actually sounds beneficial all around. If porters were only writing OpenRC runscripts, that wouldn't help much with the need to anyway keep the sysvinit scripts maintained: work that benefits GNU/Linux users too. What I also like about this is that non-default init systems will all have plenty of time to evolve (or appear, or disappear); I'm hopeful that for jessie+1 the successor to sysvinit will have become obvious. So Russ's paragraph above, referring to the default init system on non-Linux ports - if that is going to be sysvinit - would have effectively the same meaning as the following: > For the jessie release, all packages that currently support being run > under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no > technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve or > improve sysvinit support should be accepted through the jessie > release. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain steven@pyro.eu.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature