Thanks for the enlightenment. James
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:13 AM, David Jorm <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/27/2015 06:39 PM, james machado wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:29 AM, David Jorm <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Good question. My intention is not to make BIRD dependent on a specific >>> init >>> system, but to offer a choice. That is why my patch does not overwrite >>> the >>> existing bird.spec file, but instead provides a new bird-systemd.spec >>> file >>> as an alternative. I understand that systemd is controversial, and I do >>> not >>> agree with the model of "nuke sysv init and pave with systemd". I do, >>> however, support choice. >>> >>> Thanks >>> David >>> >> I'm all for choice as well. Trying to take the controversy out of it, >> let me try to rephrase. What benefit(s) is/are gained by making BIRD >> dependent on systemd that is not available without the dependency? >> Conversely what breakage happens by making it a dependency? >> >> thanks, >> James > > > This patch would not make BIRD dependent on systemd, but would make it > possible to build BIRD RPMs that are compatible with systemd. Fedora, > CentOS, RHEL, OpenSUSE, and SLES account for the vast bulk of RPM-based > Linux deployments. All of these distributions now use systemd. By providing > a systemd spec file alongside the existing sysv init spec file, it would > become possible for all of these distributions to make use of the official > BIRD RPM packages. No breakage or regression would be introduced, as the > existing sysv init spec file would remain available. > > Thanks > David
