Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems"):
> Iain Lane ([email protected]) [140302 19:28]:
> > The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
> > > 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >
> > sysvinit comes from?
>
> I think a qualified spelling error, and should read as "systemd as
> default, loose coupling".
Oh god that mis-spelling has come back. I have been writing
"sysvinit" for "systemd" and "systemd" for "sysvinit" half the time
throughout this whole business.
Sorry for the confusion. Andi is right; I meant "systemd". (My
fingers tried to do it again just there...)
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
