On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > 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.
If there is a systemd conf file, it overrides the sysvinit script. Systemd handles sysvinit scripts, so the transition can be gradual. I've mentioned that any systemd conf file should be upstreamed and is being upstreamed. So by just packaging newer versions Debian should get these files without doing much. Note that supporting multiple init scripts at the same time can trigger a whole bunch of bugs. E.g. some software can see systemd while it is compiled, enable that support and then it might not work if systemd is not the init system. > >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. It has multiple tools and various APIs for those tools. E.g. Canonical wrote a few own tools using the same dbus API. Then they use logind (or whatever the name is) on Upstart. It is another freedesktop.org project. Best to influence things is to get involved when asked, not after the fact. The goal is to make the boot more standard across distributions. So no unneeded differences in some configuration files, systemd conf files which are generic enough to be included upstream, etc. In the current state, each distribution seems to have their own sysvinit file in packages. All unneeded. Then there are some differences where some boot configuration options are stored. If you strive to keep those differences, then systemd is not for you. There will be some pain by changing existing distribution-specific tools to look for the new location. The existing distributions are ok with that (I talked to various systemd packagers from various distributions @ FOSDEM). > And I am also opposing changes that will help in dropping the > "universal" out of Debian's claim. Do you actually run a kernel other than Linux and is anything other than Linux usable? I can understand it is not nice, but feels like the other options are bitrotting anyway. -- Regards, Olav -- 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/20130530190550.ga25...@bkor.dhs.org
