Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations
Hi Adam,
On 12/1/19 12:24 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> * there's a lot of use cases where systemd fails[1]. This makes it unfit
> for being the sole init+rc of an universal operating system.
I assume you've opened bugs for all those cases?
If I understand the problems you're mentioning right, they are
- either the same issue with init. For example: cron - init will kill it
at some point, same like systemd. Just that if you'd be using systemd
timers, you could avoid all these issues.
- or a configuration or admin fail (fs/mount issues...)
> * patches fixing non-systemd regressions are routinely ignored[2]
Not having non-systemd init systems would fix this.
> * changes I view as done with spite, which bring no or negligible benefit to
> systemd yet large detriment to other rc systems[3]
same here, get rid of init and imprve systemd instead of wasting
people's time in maintaining several init systems. Or wasting other
peole's time as you don't test your service files...
> On the other hand, you cannot require contributors to implement something
> they don't care about nor have required hardware/etc for.
yes, we can. We have various architectures people don't have at home and
a policy that enforces things people might not like. Nothing unusual
here. That is the way how all bigger projects work - live with them or
choose a different place to work at.
Bernd
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Reply to: