Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
Hi there,
On 07/14/2013 05:46 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/07/13/systemd-not-portable.html
Amazing. You're just discarding what has been already discussed in this
list. In your post, you wrote:
> We, the Debian project, have two realistic options in my point of
> view:
>
> We stay with sysvinit, the least common denominator, forever.
> We use a modern init system such as systemd on Debian GNU/Linux.
These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
- support for update-rc.d
- support for invoke-rc.d
- finish the init.d script compatibility (not much remaining to do)
- make it work with an unmodified /etc/inittab
- add support for X-Start-Before (that might be the hardest part)
These issues are fixable, and I have a good hope that it will happen
before the end of the GSoC project. And there's also upstart as a quite
realistic option too.
You also wrote more or less that systemd is the only way to support
cgroups, while this is untrue. OpenRC at least has support for it (and
probably upstart too? I'm not sure...), and it also builds on FreeBSD
(not yet Debian kFreeBSD, but that also should be easy to fix). The
argument that to support modern things like cgroups, an init system has
to be incompatible with anything else than Linux is just simply false.
You know all this (if you don't, then you should read replies of others
before posting such a blog post), so why writing this? You don't want to
create another monster troll thread, do you?
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Note: I haven't even debated things, just only debunked your post.
Reply to: