Hi John On 10/02/2014 20:41, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 02/10/2014 06:47 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Neglecting reliability and maintainability for the sake of being > able to choose such a core component is a bad idea. I do not > think it's really feasible to maintain several init systems, it > just affects too many components of the system. > > We don't even manage to maintain two versions of ffmpeg (the original > and the fork) even though many users actually prefer the original. How > should this even work with the init system then?
I recommend reading all the previous discussions on the topic. Over the last year, it's become clear that in the short-term at least, a very minimum of 2 different init systems would need to be supported. At least sysvinit, because there are so many packages that ship with configuration and it won't be possible to convert them all in one release, and also because the alternative operating systems that Debian ship with won't work with Upstart or systemd. sysvinit has hit its limit with it's dependency-based nature, and the only way to fix many outstanding bugs is by switching to an event-based system. So, supporting at least 2 init systems in the short-term will be necessary. Upstart is pretty cheap to support, since it's Ubuntu's default init system and a very large amount of packages have Upstart scripts already. systemd has a very enthusiastic community and it's likely that many packages will have systemd configuration files by the time Jessie is released. There are so many possibilities going forward. It's possible that Canonical might give up on Upstart since the rest of the world has pretty much gone with systemd on Linux. Or, it's possible that Upstart would better support the niche systems / toy ports which would make it a good candidate for replacing sysvinit on those systems. Or perhaps in hindsight it might just turn out that Upstart was a better, more logical, sane, level-headed, secure, unixy and unpoetered solution and the technical committee will ask themselves "what were we thinking!?". Historically though, it seems like it has consistently been beneficial for Debian to support all the available options and let things evolve. Maybe it's just better accepting the choice and move on even if you don't like the choice. When I saw the announcement this morning I thought "Oh well, at least we can have debian-devel back now." I think if anything has been said before it doesn't have to be re-hashed to infinity. This is one of those things that you just have to learn to let it slide a bit. -Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f9282e.3090...@ubuntu.com
