Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> writes: > [1] Personally, I am sceptical whether it is a good idea to switch to a > different init system for jessie. But I am not on a desperate rant > against systemd, and if something I bring up can be addressed that > is positive for me.
Just to give fair warning: right now, based on what I know today, there is basically zero chance that I personally will vote retaining sysvinit for jessie above further discussion. So if you want to convince at least this one member of the technical committee that this is a viable option, you have quite a bit of work to do. Right now, it appears to me that the feature set is wholly inadequate, further substantial development is highly unlikely, the configuration syntax is familiar but awful, and we are already seeing software in the archive that requires capabilities that it's just not able to support. To support continuing to use sysvinit, I think I would need to see a credible plan for significant upstream development and support of the software, including, at a minimum, how the features that are required by our desktop environments would be handled, how device management and dependencies will be managed given the event-driven kernel, and how proper daemon management at least at the level common to upstart, systemd, and OpenRC will be added. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org