Re: default init on non-Linux platforms
On 02/24/2014 04:29 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 23, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Marco and yourself are *a way* off topic. Please at least have the
>> decency to rename the subject of the tread to "systemd fanboys flamewar
>> yet-again bashing OpenRC just for fun" or something similar (but
>> preferably: don't just do that in this list, and avoid replying about
>> anything related to OpenRC, since we all know what type of
>> non-productive content it's going to be).
> This is not about systemd or any other init system.
> This is about how much additional work the five OpenRC users will cause
> to other developers.
Probably you missed the point. Maybe because you don't really know what
OpenRC is about and what it does. Let's say we don't bring in new
packages, then it's 100% supported *right now* in Debian, using the
already existing LSB header init scripts. If there's new packages, then
it's probably more easy to use the simplified runscripts rather than the
traditional sysv-rc LSB header init.d scripts.
Also, it is my understanding that we wouldn't force anyone to add
support unless a patch is provided. I have no problem with that rule.
What additional work are you therefore talking about? It'd be actually
less work. The goal here is to *simplify* the maintenance of init
scripts (as well, for non-linux ports), by making it possible to use the
OpenRC syntax instead of the one of LSB header scripts which everyone
wants to get rid of.
OpenRC addresses the needs of about the 160k current users of sysv-rc.
This has nothing to do with the 800 systemd users (note: if you didn't
get it, I well know this is silly stats, I'm just using the same kind of
argumentation to show how pointless it is to use these stats in such a way).
Now that systemd is to become the default init system, at least let us
discuss peacefully about ways to address the problem of its
non-availability on some ports, and how to deal without systemd (also on
linux ports), for those who don't want to use it. If you aren't
interested in this topic, just don't read. Nobody forces you to do so.
The topic well identifies the content of the thread.
> Also, if I were bashing it just for fun then I would not forget
> mentioning its Gentoo origin.
Very constructive. Thanks.
Thomas
Reply to: