[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

Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:19:03)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37)
>>> Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To 
>>> me this looks like a legitimate fork.
>>> Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to mean "at 
>>> least one not-systemd derived"?
>> My concern is not systemd specifically - on the contrary I find it 
>> great if it brings more choice to Debian, which seems to be the 
>> status currently.
>> My concern is also not the risk that Debian could be locked into 
>> "only two" or "only three" init systems - I believe we need not deal 
>> with that until the risk of such scenario eventually becomes 
>> realistic - if we then concider such scenario a concern.
>> My concern now is to ensure that Debian supports more than a single 
>> init system.
>> I sincerely hope that I made myself more clear this time, and that 
>> you found my response adequate and we can move on.
> Not really, I'm afraid (although you're of course free to move on). I 
> am still wondering, if Debian would support only uselessd and systemd, 
> would you consider that "more than one init system" or not? And if 
> not, why not?

I don't know:

I do know from our recent experience of bugs appearing and getting fixed 
too!) that "whoa, let's preserve more than one init system in Debian".

Maybe an experience with systemd + uselessd will not make me react 
"whoa, let's preserve more than two init systems in Debian", or maybe 
even "whoa, let's preserve at least one conservative init system in 
Debian" - I don't know.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: