On Jan 03, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote: > That's where I don't agree. While it's nice to have such a declarative > system, I don't think it's reasonable to impose the implementation of > any change to systemd to all the other init systems. I do. Good luck persuading the consumers of this API that they should not use some features because you did not implement them in your own alternative package. Also, you have still not explained why we would need another implementation of these programs, except that "it's not systemd". We systemd package maintainers have discussed using alternatives for these programs and I think that we have a strong consensus that this is not what alternatives are for: if another implementation is actually needed then it should conflict+provide something. > You are being obviously biased toward systemd here. Just try to think a Indeed: obviously, most people actually do not mind using systemd... > 2nd time: the same way, what if opentmpfiles implements a new feature > that is *not* in systemd implementation? There, we have an exit What if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it? > Similarly, the way > systemd is trying to take over DNS resolving and NTP in an "integrated" I just want to clarify that it is not... -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature