Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.
- To: Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com>
- Cc: Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Paul Tagliamonte <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.
- From: Alexander Wirt <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:40:46 +0100
- Message-id: <20131028174046.GC9149@hawking.credativ.lan>
- Mail-followup-to: Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Russ Allbery <email@example.com>, Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Paul Tagliamonte <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20131028172214.GA11764@master.debian.org>
- References: <20131025122954.GA9101@bongo.bofh.it> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <loom.20131025T155807email@example.com> <20131025161604.GA12753@helios.pault.ag> <20131025184344.GB4599@helios.pault.ag> <20131026090736.GA7515@xanadu.blop.info> <20131026171703.GC14994@virgil.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20131026182021.GE14994@virgil.dodds.net> <20131028172214.GA11764@master.debian.org>
Wouter Verhelst schrieb am Monday, den 28. October 2013:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
> > drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
> While I'm not sure from your mail whether you meant to suggest otherwise, I do
> think that whatever we decide for jessie, we should continue the requirement of
> sysvinit compatibility for at least one release after we ship with some more
> modern init system.
> Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do
> support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we
> (well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy should be
> that a package should ship either some init configuration for the
> default init system, or a sysv-style init script. In fact, I think we
> should continue to encourage the latter, in cases where it does make
> sense (e.g., when a given daemon doesn't have any init system specific
> features that could be enabled), since that will help our non-Linux
> ports without significantly impacting performance of the new init
It will also make backporting much easier.