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

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution


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).


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:


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.

Steven Chamberlain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: