Re: choice in core infrastructure decisions (Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow
> > users to replace the system C library with a different one. That's
> > something that we *could* do, but the general consensus of the project is
> > that investing our effort in that is not the best way to produce
> > excellence.
> I kind of disagree with that. I don't think that the fact that we don't
> support multiple C libraries is the result of a "consensus decision".
> I think it's just because noone attempted to properly do that and prove
> it's viability and usefulness either to a portion of the userbase or the
> project as a whole.
> Similarly, I don't think the kFreeBSD ports or any of the other Linux
> architecture ports were a consensus decision. People just did it, the
> work was of reasonable standards and useful both to expanding the
> userbase and to improving the quality of the other ports.
> People are working on building Debian with LLVM (which is great IMHO).
> Very few people complained about that and the talk was very much
> welcomed at DebConf. We even have a GSoC project about it. There are
> other similar examples.
> As for OpenRC, as far as I understand it, it's similar -but with its LSB
> header compatibility much less intrusive- with file-rc. None of the two
> are an /sbin/init replacement.
In fact file-rc now supports depedency based booting and lsb headers. This is
not yet in wheezy but will hopefully get into wheezy.