[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: supporting more than one... (Re: let's split the systemd binary package

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,

 .''`.  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

Reply to: