Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
On 2019/12/04 19:11, Svante Signell wrote:
> I've purposely kept out of this discussion, hoping that you all can
> behave in a civil manner. Obviously not. I don't rank you mail
> defective, there have bee several other on this list. Anyway, this
> whole GR is about systemd or sysvinit, and everybody pretends they
> don't know about alternatives, like OpenRC, initng, runit, monit, s6,
> daemontools, and especially Shepherd. Are you all blind to Free
> Software progressing steadily, in spite of something that would hurt
> Debian as a distribution for many years to come?
I don't believe that that kind of tone is welcome on this list. I
understand how you could feel that way, but if you read a bit closer you
would see that openrc, runit and other init systems have come up
multiple times on this list and on debian-devel recently. A few people
have mentioned that sysvinit scripts come up in discussion so much
because they tend to be a common denominator that can be used across
init systems as a fallback, the people who refer to sysvinit scripts in
such a fashion do not intend to imply that the alternative to systemd
should be sysvinit per sé.
If you look at the current proposals[1], none of the options explicitly
mention sysvinit, it talks about systemd and other init systems, I doubt
it's at all necessary to mention all of them by name. Anyone who cares
about init systems other than systemd probably already uses one or more
of those.
-Jonathan
[1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Reply to: