Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
On 10/26/2013 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Goirand <email@example.com> writes:
>> Plus if we choose Upstart or Systemd, then that's effectively what we
>> are going to do (I mean, we'd have to support 2 init systems, because of
>> Hurd & kFreeBSD).
> Not necessarily. We could also decide that whichever init system we pick
> will need to be ported to Hurd and kFreeBSD (in some fashion, possibly
> with functionality restrictions)
> I think it's worth noting that, historically, the Hurd port has never
> required us to hold back the Linux architectures. Rather, the Hurd
> porters have worked hard on adding functionality to Hurd to support the
> software in the archive by implementing Linux interfaces
I've been very impressed by the hurd effort as well.
> and at turning
> the required changes to packaged software into general and defensible
> upstream improvements. I've always been very impressed by this effort,
> and I don't think we should assume systemd or upstart could not be handled
> the same way that many other things have been handled in the past.
Well, because of the upstream for Systemd, it can't, someone would have
to fork the project (or maintain a separate branch, which would be as
painful). Lennart has been (IMO sadly) very clear about this.