Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#727708: The tech ctte isn't considering OpenRC at
all"):
> I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude
> toward OpenRC in general.
I'm sorry about that, but:
The way I investigated both systems was by reading their documentation
and playing about with them (on the VMs Steve helpfully provided).
At the start of my investigations I asked where I could find the
reference documentation and no-one answered. And, OpenRC wasn't in
sid. So these things weren't possible.
> But that OpenRC just hasn't been considered just because of rumors is
> really unacceptable.
The reason I haven't seriously considered OpenRC for the default is
that it wasn't ready.
Perhaps things have improved. But I don't think it is necessarily the
TC's job to go back and revisit OpenRC in these circumstances. How
mature a system is and how well-developed in Debian are relevant
factors and it's not unreasonable to set a deadline, at which the
state of the system in Debian will be the basis of our technical
evaluation.
On to specifics:
Thomas, does OpenRC provide a means for do non-forking daemon
startup ?
By that I mean some arrangement whereby:
* The daemon does not double-fork; it runs in the foreground of
of its initial process.
* The daemon's parent process (part of the init system) keeps
track of it, so the init system knows whether the process
is still running.
* The daemon's stderr goes somewhere reasonable.
If the answer to this question is "yes" then I will go and at least
read the documentation. If it's "no" then I have to say that I think
(for me) OpenRC is failing to deal with the key underlying technical
problem we have with daemons in sysvinit right now.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
