Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 13:41 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > [Uoti Urpala] > > IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting > > it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's > > desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would > > only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why kFreeBSD > > is a big net win for the project, or after a vote showing significant > > support for the port. > > IMO letting systemd block a technology like kFreeBSD (or even letting > it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's > desirable to introduce the port for Debian releases) would > only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why systemd is > a big net win for the project, or after a vote showing significant > support for the package.
You are both framing the discussion through a fallacy: that the only choice we have is either to drop kfreebsd or to keep insserv forever. There is no point in doing that. The only thing you are achieving is throwing people against one another, without anything happening at the technical level. Having concluded from this thread that 1) kfreebsd is important to Debian and 2) systemd is important for Debian, the question cannot be which one we choose between the two, but HOW we achieve both with the least pain possible. Several people have already explained that it should be possible to write a script, working for most packages, to generate old-style init scripts from systemd service files, allowing for a compatibility wrapper on top of insserv for kfreebsd (until systemd is ported or a compatible init is written for it). -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1311155761.4372.262.camel@pi0307572
