Wouter Verhelst schrieb am Monday, den 28. October 2013: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to > > drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility; > > While I'm not sure from your mail whether you meant to suggest otherwise, I do > think that whatever we decide for jessie, we should continue the requirement > of > sysvinit compatibility for at least one release after we ship with some more > modern init system. > > Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do > support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we > (well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy should be > that a package should ship either some init configuration for the > default init system, or a sysv-style init script. In fact, I think we > should continue to encourage the latter, in cases where it does make > sense (e.g., when a given daemon doesn't have any init system specific > features that could be enabled), since that will help our non-Linux > ports without significantly impacting performance of the new init > system. It will also make backporting much easier.
Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
