Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
>> Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
>>> David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>>>> OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
>>>> provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your
>>> This resolution will be interpreted by humans, specifically
>>> individual maintainers, the TC, and the release team - not by robots.
>> Presumably some maintainers would consider uselessd an alternate init
>> system - and others will not. In that case the GR seems have achieved
>> effectively nothing.
> If there was a secret agenda e.g. to annoy systemd then you are right
> that such trick that you now thought up would mean that this GR was a
> waste of time.
I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
yet another guy started the project).
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«