Hi, in this debate, enlightening *ahem* as it was, I think that one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. (IMHO.)
systemd uses dependencies. Upstart uses events. Dependencies are static. My job's dependencies are either fulfilled, or not. This means that troubleshooting is easy -- I can simply look at the prerequisites and fix whatever is broken, bootup then continues by itself. Events are dynamic. In order to debug a problem, one needs to know what happened and in which order. If a job does not start, maybe the event did not happen -- or it happened too early, or too late, or it's blocked internally. Yes, upstart does that. I would like to refer interested parties to two Launchpad bugs, https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/516713 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654, which (despite being three and four years old, respectively) remain unfixed. They show quite clearly, IHMO, that upstart's model does not work in the real world, and/or that its development has stalled. This would be enough reason for me to choose systemd, even if I were to disregard all the other features of systemd which upstart does not have (like the journal, or socket activation that actually works). I would therefore like to ask the TC to select systemd. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
