Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> (I have cloned the bug for this, to keep this particular
> sub-discussion separable.)
>
> As I have reported, we have a problem with non-forking daemon
> readiness protocols.
"We have a problem" seems a bit exxagerated to me. So far, the only
problem that I have seen is that you don't like the systemd protocol,
(and there's nothing wrong with that, I even agree to some extent). But
does that translate to a general problem with readiness protocols in
Debian? In other words, is there a significant number of important
packages where neither upstream nor the Debian maintainer is willing to
tolerate systemd's protocol, and that cannot use socket activation
either?
[...]
> I conclude therefore that we should design another simple protocol -
> preferably, a variation on one of the existing ones - and have (at
> least) both Debian's systemd and Debian's upstart implement it.
Could you elaborate a bit on the advantages of this proposal for Debian?
(Maybe I don't see them because I don't see the general problem that
you're trying to solve in the first place).
I think that most likely this standard wouldn't be used by anyone other
than Debian, so every daemon needs a Debian specific patch to support
it.
Best,
Nikolaus
--
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
