Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Thoughts on Init System Debate"):
>> However, moving to a single supported init system with a defined
>interface is something that I would like to see.
>
> If you want that, and you want to keep the non-Linux ports, then I
> think you have to pick upstart as the single supported system.Look, I completely understand your position with respect to systemd upstream's attitude about portability patches, but I don't entirely understand how that leads to an "upstart is the only answer" conclusion. For example, given your note about what would cause you to re-consider OpenRC earlier today, I can't help but wonder about the relative development effort required to add non-forking daemon support to OpenRC as compared to the effort required to add kfreebsd and hurd support to upstart? The fact that OpenRC has reportedly already booted on both kfreebsd and hurd systems certainly intrigues *me*, and copying either the systemd or upstart approaches to non-forking daemon support in OpenRC might be plausible? Perhaps that still wouldn't leave a solution you would personally vote above upstart, but suggesting the only options are "pick upstart or bail on non-Linux kernels" just doesn't ring true to me. Bdale
pgpEpnBDboJhP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
