Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gmail.com> writes:
> 2013/7/22 Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>:
>> We would be effectively "locked in".
> We are locked in sysvinit.
Except we're not: both systemd and upstart support sysvinit scripts.
Which is why we can do a gradual migration, or even switch back and forth
between various alternatives. However, the native formats of both systemd
and upstart (and, for that matter, OpenRC) are mutually incompatible, so
migration from one to another is much more difficult than migration from
sysvinit to any of the alternatives once a substantial number of init
scripts are written in the new format and the old init scripts are
dropped.
That's the point.
I can certainly see why people may not consider that a significant
drawback, or may consider other advantages more than worth that tradeoff,
and indeed we do make tradeoffs like that all the time. I'm not horribly
worried about it personally. But that doesn't change the fact that it
*is* a potential drawback. If we adopt a single alternative and move a
substantial number of the current init scripts to the new format, we have
locked ourselves into that alternative in a more substantial way than we
currently have (where we're using a portable, if horrible, init format
that is supported by all the alternatives).
Come on, everyone. We can maintain a higher quality level of discussion
than this. Please stop trying to find gotchas in everyone else's
statements and instead take a little time to try to understand what
they're actually saying. It's perfectly fine if you disagree or weigh
tradeoffs differently, but when people say that they're concerned about an
issue, they're probably neither lying nor idiots. They're just concerned
about a different set of things than you are.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: