Re: systemd .service file conversion
On 27-05-13 21:56, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 27 mai 2013 à 09:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
>> I would be quite happy to write service files for two (systemd,
>> upstart) or three (systemd, upstart, openrc) of those in all my
>> packages[*], if it stops the endless flamewar here. I would also be
>> happy to have the requirement to support two (or three) of them in the
>> Debian policy.
>
> This kind of madness is precisely described here:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
[zillionth link to "linux is not about choice mail"]
It is also true that Debian doesn't work in the same way that
RedHat/Fedora do.
At RedHat, traditionally you have a predefined choice made by some core
committee who picks one option, and the rest of the community has to
deal with it. The advantage is that they usually don't have the same
kind of flamewars and TC decisions that we need to deal with, but the
disadvantage of that method is that the choice which is made may not be
the best.
At Debian, traditionally we support more than one choice (at least for a
while), until the community at large decides that option X is the best
one (and then we drop support for all the other options). The downside
of that is that it takes a lot longer for us to make a choice, but
eventually you usually get the better option.
The only reason why we seem to be unable to do so this time is that some
people claim the sky will fall if we don't make a choice NOW!!1!
I think it makes perfect sense for us to support systemd, openrc, and
upstart, at least for the time being; I doubt we'll continue supporting
all three options until the end of times, but we don't have to do that.
At any rate, we *need* to support multiple options for our non-Linux
ports, too, so this wouldn't be a lost effort.
--
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.
If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you
will not go to space today.
-- http://xkcd.com/1133/
Reply to: