Re: A few observations about systemd
]] Guus Sliepen
| On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:46:54AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
| > If you want a more suitable comparison, supporting two init systems
| > would be like supporting two packaging formats. It means more work for
| > all maintainers to support all possible combinations, and it doesn’t
| > change anything for end users.
| I would hardly call that a suitable comparison. How hard can it be to
| support both sysvinit and systemd? It's just two little files to
| maintain instead of one. We also have/had both .menu and .desktop
| files. Sure, they will be out of sync once in a while, but other than
| that I really don't see the problem.
The problem with this is you get even more combinatorial explosion and
less testing, particularly for packages that have few users.
| By the way, we already have the SysV init scripts, so we don't need to
| do anything to keep supporting that, while it will take some time
| before every package with a daemon has the required systemd scripts in
| place, I think we should wait with any switch until there is at least
| enough coverage.
(Ignoring the kFreeBSD side of things for a bit): Why? As others have
pointed out, systemd uses sysvinit scripts just fine.
| If you think your comparison is suitable, then are you suggesting we do
| something as difficult as moving from .deb format to .rpm?
It'd be like moving from .deb to a format supporting .deb and .rpm, not
dropping the old support.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are