Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected]> writes: > ]] Russ Allbery >> Given that, I don't believe a Technical Committee choice of a default >> init system is going to make either the systemd or the upstart >> maintainers want to stop maintaining their packages.
> Given what you're basically deciding between is «upstart + castrated > systemd» or «systemd» and I think I've pretty clearly expressed my > thoughts on splitting up systemd, I don't know where that conclusion > comes from. I have to admit that I didn't give it a whole lot of thought. It was an assumption based on the presence of both in the archive for some time now as non-default init systems under sysvinit. In that sense, things don't change that horribly much, at least up to the jessie release, if the default changes from one non-systemd thing to another non-systemd thing. That being said, obviously you should speak for yourself, and I stand corrected. Apologies for misprepresenting your feelings here. >> 6. Debian's non-Linux ports should either use the same init system as >> Debian's Linux ports or agree on an init system that they're both going >> to use. The porting work is going to be hard enough without the ports >> going in different directions on which secondary init system they want >> to use. I prefer to leave it up to the porters to decide which init >> system to choose, but I do think OpenRC would be a strong contender. > I think allowing them to use a compatible init system should be ok too, > if somebody wants to do that. Oh, yes, good point. I was thinking more in terms of two different init systems with different preferred configuration files. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
