Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
Am Sa., 9. Nov. 2019 um 23:01 Uhr schrieb Mike Gabriel
<mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de>:
> [...]
> Isn't as side-question that is on the table with this GR: what about
> the future of non-Linux variants of Debian. If systemd becomes _the_
> init system of focus in Debian (by vote, not only de facto), kFreeBSD
> and Hurd will certainly have more of their difficulties, more than
> they have now.
> [...]
This comes up often, but I don't think this is actually that big of a
deal: kFreeBSD & Co. already require a lot of other changes in
packages, related to facilities (DBus services, syscalls, etc.) not
available on these platforms.
While all Linux ports could use systemd, the kFreeBSD/Hurd
architectures could continue using sysvinit, and packages could
conditionally install init-scripts only on the kFreeBSD architecture.
This also avoids dependency issues and problems caused by switching
out init.
Note that I am not saying "this is what should be done", just that in
case we *would* go all-in on systemd, this in no way would mean the
death of non-Linux ports. Sure, they would be slightly harder to
maintain, but they are already a hard thing to do, and compared to
porting stuff that uses Linux syscalls, the init issue isn't that much
different.
The one thing I am against though is the non-Linux ports holding back
innovation and experimentation on the Linux ports. If we go with the
lowest common denominator, we can't realistically move forward, ever.
Cheers,
Matthias
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Reply to: