On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:16:53 +0200, Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote: >On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:21:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> The init system case is special because supporting another init script >> system will most probably mean that all packages delivering an init >> script ($ ls /etc/init.d/ | wc -l => 116 on my small notebook system) >> will have to adapt. This is a major transition, and while we offer >> multiple init systems as officially supported, additional work is >> needed by all developers. > >The systemd files should be pushed upstream (this is what other >distributions have done and will do). Furthermore, systemd support >sysvinit.
How many features of systemd do we lose if we only use it to invoke daemons via the init script compatibility layer? I doubt the change makes sense if we end up doing things this way. >Obviously there will be a pain when switching, but then I >guess your argument is that any change is bad? My argument is that the "one job one tool" approach that Unixoid OSses use is a good approach and that I am extremely reluctant to drop it for a topic _this_ central in the operating system. And I am also opposing changes that will help in dropping the "universal" out of Debian's claim. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ui5h3-0004wk...@swivel.zugschlus.de