Niels Möller [2014-01-15 22:34 +0100]: > Users should not select a non-default init system lightly. I think it's > going to be a bit like using the "non-default" kfreebsd or hurd kernel. > It's not for the average user who wants as much software as possible to > work as well as possible. It's for the user who is curious, or really > likes to use or hack that piece of software, or maybe hopes that it's > going to replace the current default component sometime in the future.
That's not something I'd call "supported" then. So either that non-default init system does get a certain amount of interest, and many maintainers add an init script for that system to their packages -- then there's the additional maintenance/testing/subpar quality problem for that. Or they don't, and then having that init system doesn't make much sense in the first place. > (And it's going to be at least 4 init systems, not 3, right? systemd, > upstart, sysv and openrc. With support for sysv possibly dropped after a > few release cycles). There's no practical way to drop sysv of course, at least as long as we have non-Linux ports. So this is already 2, and that at least still has some technical justification. But having more than $DEFAULT and sysv just boils down to "we can't make a decision". Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
