* Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> [2019-12-02 22:55]:
> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be evaluated
> independently

Guillem, there's a lot of stuff I agree with you on, both in this
email and the proposal you wrote.

What I find strange though is that you acknowledge in this email that
each situation needs to be evaluated independently, but your GR
proposal is a blank statement about portability that completely
ignores that the GR is trying to evaluate only the init system

I support "portability and multiple implementations" where this makes
sense.  People have tried to support multiple init systems but it
hasn't worked out for whatever reason (and you can argue that there was
never a real attempt because various people blocked it, etc, but the
point is that the old approach hasn't worked out and everyone is tired
with the situation).  That's why we've reached the point of this GR to
find a way forward.

With your libaio, GNOME and llvm examples you acknowledge that there
needs to be a cost and benefit analysis for each case, but then when
we have a GR to find out specifically how people see that analysis for
*init systems* you propose an amendment that basically says
"portability at (almost) any cost".

Martin Michlmayr

Reply via email to