Hi Helmut, On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:22:54AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Having read the parts of the ctte bug, it feels odd to preclude the > option of supporting multiple init systems from discussion or > consideration. If Debian is to support only one init system and that one > init system is systemd, then given my above analysis it will be very > hard for non-Linux ports to catch up. I argue that in this case we > should consider dropping support for non-Linux ports. So if we really > are considering such an outcome, why not consider the outcome of > supporting multiple init systems (but maybe only one per architecture)? While other members of the TC may wish to consider this option, I've ruled it out myself because we would lose most of the benefits of switching away from sysvinit and instead accrue significant maintenance costs to individual developers who would then have to support both init systems in their packages. What makes switching init systems worth doing is being able to *simplify* the interfaces between the init system and the services. Continuing to support different init systems across different architectures would add complexity instead. That's a pretty bleak outcome. There's nothing fundamental that prevents upstart from being ported to non-Linux ports. So certainly, if the TC decides for upstart, I see no reason we would want to support sysvinit on ports instead of expecting the porters to port upstart to their architecture. > This would become radically easier if gnome were to become Architecture: > linux-any. GNOME may be the trigger for this being raised to the TC, but it's not the core question that we need to address. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature