Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>> 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).
> When I read someone mention uselessd before, I thought it was a
> hypothetical fork of systemd which was nearly identical to systemd.
> I think uselessd, if it is successful, deals squarely with many of the
> actual reasons why people don't like systemd: systemd's tendency to
> try to be everything. That is the real coupling threat - not the lack
> of ability to continue to use init scripts.
> So I think in practice there aren't going to be many packages that
> would want to couple specifically to systemd _or_ uselessd, but where
> support for other init systems is hard to provide.
So just to be clear: A package requiring either uselessd or systemd
would be acceptable in Debian if your GR proposal passes?
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.«