Hi, On 22/05/13 at 15:11 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > 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. I agree that ideally, a swift and uneventful transition to a single modern init system would be great. Unfortunately, we have two strong alternatives, and no clear collective understanding of which one is better now, and will be for the future. I fully understand that supporting more than one init system increases the maintenance effort and the QA needs significantly, and that this is unlikely to be sustainable on the long term. However, this is a possible compromise that buys us time while we gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of each solution. What I failed to understand so far is what it would mean to support sysvinit, systemd and upstart from the point of view of udev (and other key packages). Could you enlighten me? What are the main problems to expect? Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature