On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, Yo, Holger! > On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think > > *anyone* wants to get into. > > are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I always assume there are > a few, but you make it sound like it is the majority ;-p I mean, I may be wrong, but this is my mindset: (where "A package" is some mid-size or major package) Situation A: A package ships a sysvinit file A package ships a systemd unit file Situation B: A package ships a sysvinit file A package does not ship a systemd unit file Situation C: A package does not ship a sysvinit file A package ships a systemd unit file I'd argue everyone agrees A is fine, and that B is fine. However, I don't think many folks would think C is fine. I therefore posit that we treat sysvinit different than systemd, if not by rule, then by behavior. I'd argue this is *not* the case with KDE or GNOME, since packages that do one (and not the other) is quite common. I have no point here, except to say that, currently, I do not believe we fully support anything other then sysvinit as a project. > Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a > good thing. (Or maybe it's not, but supporting just one would definitly be our > worst choice at this time.) Perhaps so, something worth talking about :) In the meantime, I'm more keen on getting *a* decision we can get behind, and bring the discourse up a notch (to technical arguments in ctte, rather then the flame threads that really distract everyone and drive us all insane. > cheers, > Holger Much love, T -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature