Re: Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
Jonathan,
FYI: From a mail From Uoti Urpala:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/12/msg00054.html
fact: There is in practice no development of new alternative init
systems happening, and no clear reason to believe that if it
hypothetically did occur, there would be particular problems. Certainly
there are no concrete problems in need of resolution.
Did you see this mail?
> 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.
Again, systemd versus sysvinit is not the real issue. It is about
systemd versus _any_ alternative. And don't talk about tone, look at
this mail list archive, one contribution quoted above.
> 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.
Again, see above. And don't insult me, that is not polite. I've been a
user, supporter and contributor to Debian for a very long time. Just
take some time to search (in different forums), if you find the time to
do that.
Thanks!
Reply to: