Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
On December 7, 2019 7:26:14 PM UTC, Dmitry Bogatov <KAction@disroot.org> wrote:
>
>If we succeed at protecting init.d scripts, it will be feasible to
>develop support for other init systems gradually, package after
>package.
>
>Should we fail, introduction of new init system will require either
>introduction of native support into ~1300 packages at same time or use
>of systemd files as fallback, which means inheriting huge complexity.
>
>In other words, death of init.d scripts means end of all hope.
There are definitely advantages to having each daemon ship its own startup scripts/control files, and that's how Debian has done it for as long as I can remember, but it seems like there is an alternative — have them provided by a different package. Probably one package providing quite a few of them. It'd need some way to only try to start installed daemons, but that sounds solvable. Advantage being that partial support (200 common daemons, not all 1300) would be possible. And it'd be independent (so anyone running systemd would just ignore its presence in the archive), and wouldn't need cooperation from the maintainers of the other packages.
Wouldn't help with programs depending on e.g., systemd-logind, of course.
But possibly there is hope for other init systems even if one of the systemd-all-the-way options wins.
Reply to: