Re: Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:38:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> My understanding is that init scripts will still be required for FreeBSD
>> and The Hurd.
> I would not assume that. At least, I personally don't think that
> switching to upstart or systemd as a default but requiring that everyone
> provide both files for that system and init scripts for Hurd and kFreeBSD
> to be a good outcome, since I don't think that will be something at which
> Debian will be successful.
But that seems like the easiest way to not break what is already working
in GNU/kFreeBSD, Hurd - and on users' own Linux systems if they have
non-Debian software using SysV init scripts.
Do systemd/Upstart intend to rewrite inits cripts for all of the
estimated up to 1200 packages that provide them currently? Or could
they just as easily keep using some of those SysV scripts and keep them
Dismissing the ports as toy projects is not a compelling argument to me.
Not least because I think of a toy as something fun, educational and
certainly not without any meaning; I wouldn't want commercial desires
to get too much in the way of that.
I could equally dismiss the plans for GNOME+systemd+Linux integration as
hype/fantasy. But actually, I welcome people to try it and show us what
it can do, as long as they do so without harming the rest of us.
Having some fallback is beneficial not only to the ports but to Linux
users who may not want, or are unable to use, the new init system.
Just wondering, if systemd upstream cares only for Linux and that's
considered okay, might they also start dropping support for
architectures they stop caring about (or for commercial reasons)? Say
MIPS, s390, SPARC. In that case, permanently ditching SysV init could
put even some Linux ports in jeopardy. Perhaps Upstart carries the same
risk if Ubuntu releases only for i386/amd64/arm.