On May 21, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> wrote: > We don't need to select a single init system at this point, and it would As the maintainer of a package which is strongly tied to the init system, I disagree. > Then, something I failed to find in the discussion was a discussion of > how sysvinit / systemd / upstart could co-exist (not on a single system, > but in the archive). I suggest that this is related to my first point. > I understand that systemd replaces some parts of > initscripts, could also replace syslog, etc. How do systemd supporters > see that working in practice? What kind of feature duplication between > init sytems should be expected? How much does it increase the > maintenance effort? I am not strictly a systemd supporter but more like a "modern init system supporter", and the duplication, increased mainteinance overhead and lack of QA are the reasons why I do not want to support multiple init systems in my packages and I do not think that Debian should either as a project. > Is it realistic to dream about a generator that would automate the > generation of sysvinit scripts, systemd .service files, and upstart job > files for a majority of our packages (the "easy" ones)? The "easy" ones can continue using sysvinit scripts for a while, since they can coexist with both upstart and systemd configurations. (Maybe better in the systemd case.) -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature