Hi Marco, Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes: > On Aug 10, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote: > >> In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement >> for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that). > So do the other init systems. > The point is what they can do which sysvinit (and openrc) cannot. You may have noticed that despite your incessant attempts to shout this effort down, they went ahead and did it anyway. Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them to simply discard their work because you tell them to? You might not like it, and you might even think they've been wasting their time, but unless you can come up with a demonstration that allowing this in will cause actual damage to the distribution you might as well shut up. As a largely disinterested observer, it seems that this might at least provide a route to being able to provide enough support of the the features that make the systemd/upstart folk dizzy with excitement, such that non-linux platforms don't end up acting as a blocker for one of those two to be adopted for linux, while OpenRC covers non-linux enough so that init-agnostic start-up scripts can work anywhere. If it only results in some more effort being applied to coming up with that agnostic solution, then the rest of us can then get on with life while the upstart and systemd folk take chunks out of one another for a decade or so. So, please tell us about the corrosive harm that you think is going to result from this being allowed into the archive (in detail, with references), or let them get on with it. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
pgpf0XIzXfB0A.pgp
Description: PGP signature