Hi, Le mardi, 29 octobre 2013 15.08:01 Russ Allbery a écrit : > However, making all package maintainers continue to go through the > pain of maintaining SysV init scripts to support Hurd and kFreeBSD > doesn't strike me as a good outcome. It does for me. First we're not talking about _all_ package maintainers but only those maintaining init scripts; we should refrain from inflating this problem as affecting _all_ of Debian. Second, if we were to have different init systems [0] for different kernels, I think it would be reasonable to put the burden of maintaining the init systems on the shoulders of those using (and maintaining) these ports; that wouldn't be asking too much. (Booting a machine requires what? 5-20 scripts? Add 3-5 for launching a webserver and friends?) [0] Pid1 is only part of the problem, the bigger picture is "pid1 + services machinery", IMHO. I, for one, would happily accept patches for the sysvinit scripts in my packages it that helps different-kernel ports (as I've tried to accomodate other ports from debian-ports when possible), but as I'm not currently running any non-Linux Debian host, I can't reasonably test these; they would then need to come from the people using (and maintaining) these different-kernel ports. > I expect that pattern to continue: we will try our best to port Debian > as broadly as possible, and we will occasionally give up on a porting > target (at least outside of the secondary debian-ports > infrastructure) because there's too much work to do and insufficient > resources. Sure. That said, I do think that requiring package maintainers to accept patches for non-Linux ports init systems would be a reasonable compromise. Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.