[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory


Ian Jackson:
> or it might be that all
> our daemon packages end up adopting some common startup framework
> whose implementation in the sysvinit package is buggy or defective, or
> something.
Mmh. s/all/many/ s/adopting some common startup framework/using socket
activation/, which *surprise* is only implemented by systemd. (Disregarding
upstart's defective version of same for the moment.)

> I think naming any particular init in this GR is not a good idea.

So we should use convoluted wording instead, and leave it to every DD to
mentally substitute the convolutions with systemd / sys5rc as appropriate?

I don't know what that's supposed to achieve, but then I don't know what
your GR is supposed to achieve either, so I suppose that's all right. :-P

-- Matthias Urlichs

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: