Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 31, Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> wrote:
>> These are running stretch, and I would like to upgrade them without
>> breaking my existing scripts, which assume sysvinit with runlevels
>> (including one-shot runlevels).
> Somebody having legacy scripts which assume sysvinit and that they do
> not want to change does not make "sysvinit preferred over systemd" as it
> is being argued.
It does, however, mean that it's a good idea for us to continue to support
sysvinit.
We have a workable compromise at the moment, and it doesn't seem to be
causing huge amounts of pain. As long as that continues, I plan on
continuing to ship init scripts in my packages, although I'm not going to
go to a ton of work to add new and exciting features to them. (But
patches welcome.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: