Matthias Klumpp <[email protected]> writes: > However, I think it may be useful to highlight in the vote text > somewhere that systemd is actually not just the init system, but a > modular collection of different tools designed to work well together > (many, but not all of them depending on systemd being PID 1), and that > there may be benefit to the Debian operating system in deciding to adopt > some of them, at least on the Linux ports.
I strongly agree with this. Right now, I think all three options that Sam put forward as a draft are insufficient because they aren't sufficiently clear on how we intend to handle the other plumbing and facilities that the systemd project is maintaining. I was kind of hoping (lazily) that the discussion would generate wording, not only for this option but also for options 1 and 2, that clearly addresses this, but if not, I'll try to propose some amendments to do so. (Although it would be better if someone working directly on init system diversity would write that language for at least option 1. I don't know how much of an obstacle, say, asking the sysvinit ecosystem to run systemd-tmpfiles at boot would be, and therefore ideally should not be writing language trying to take a position on that.) I don't think this GR will serve the purpose it's intended for unless we clearly address more than just init scripts and elogind. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
