Hi, Thomas Goirand wrote: > OpenRC is actively maintained upstream,
Sysvinit is AFAIK maintained upstream again since a year ago or so. So this is no reason to get rid of sysvinit. Note all the new upstream releases, Dmitry has uploaded in the past year: https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sysvinit.html > and is a full replacement of sysv-rc, including many improvements. Is that now the case? The last time I looked (years ago), there were features in sysvinit which weren't in OpenRC (yet). IIRC not having concurrent execution of boot scripts was one of the missing features and the reason for e.g. our derivative distribution GRML to not switch to OpenRC some years ago. > Currently, packages are stuck with long, non-declarative sysv-rc scripts, and > cannot switch to superior runscripts, interpreted by /sbin/openrc-run, which > enable declarative-only scripts. > > So, my proposal is to get rid of sysv-rc provided by sysvinit, in the favor of > OpenRC, so that developers can start replacing their init scripts by superior > runscripts. Yes, the fact that these runscripts use the same paths as classic initscripts in Debian is a pity. > Your thoughts? I'd really prefer to continue to have both init systems in parallel (as long as they're maintained upstream), with different paths so that both can be used properly. I'm though not really sure how much impact it will have to have different paths for the runscripts than upstream. Maybe packages can ship them somewhere else than default, and openrc uses dpkg-divert to get them into the expected path if and only if openrc is installed. P.S.: One of the really cool things about Buster is that it offers 5 or 6 different init systems! Now that's what I call diversity. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
