Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)
On 11/15/2014 7:20 AM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:55:47, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 5:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It was claimed that sysvinit was the default *and only* (emphasis not
>>> mine) init, and therefore no selection was needed, but now that there
>>> are several a selection suddenly is needed.
>>
>> I don't recall claiming that sysvinit was the *only* init, nor do I
>> recall anyone else making such a claim.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/11/msg00814.html
> Maybe a language issue? (I'm not a native speaker).
Nope, that was me and I actually did say it... weird that I didn't
remember saying that... but it doesn't really change anything...
Just because other init systems exist doesn't mean they were actually
being used, other than maybe just someone toying around.
Are you seriously suggesting that anything other than a tiny and
insignificant fraction were using anything other than sysvinit (until
systemd came along at least)?
> For fresh installs, given that there is a suitable[1] workaround
<sigh>
how many times does it have to be said - that is not a workaround for a
CLEAN INSTALL.
> For dist-upgrades, even assuming systems will be switched automatically
> (which is still undecided):
>
> - one can prevent switching by installing sysvinit-core before the
> dist-upgrade step
> - the sysvinit package contains the binary /lib/sysvinit/init which can
> be used with the init= kernel parameter
> - there is a grub patch[3] pending integration[4] to offer an
> alternative sysvinit boot option
Yes, and how long after upgrading to jessie staying with sysvinit until
things start breaking (most likely subtle breakage, which is the least
desirable on a server).
> [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757298
> [4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/10/msg00057.html
>
> The transition plan[5] has been posted on -devel since July with no
> objections.
Maybe because most debian *users* don't follow the dev list because they
aren't devs...
Reply to: