On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:46:54AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > If you want a more suitable comparison, supporting two init systems > would be like supporting two packaging formats. It means more work for > all maintainers to support all possible combinations, and it doesn’t > change anything for end users.
I would hardly call that a suitable comparison. How hard can it be to support
both sysvinit and systemd? It's just two little files to maintain instead of
one. We also have/had both .menu and .desktop files. Sure, they will be out of
sync once in a while, but other than that I really don't see the problem.
By the way, we already have the SysV init scripts, so we don't need to do
anything to keep supporting that, while it will take some time before every
package with a daemon has the required systemd scripts in place, I think we
should wait with any switch until there is at least enough coverage.
If you think your comparison is suitable, then are you suggesting we do
something as difficult as moving from .deb format to .rpm?
> > And sysvinit is working fine. I never had a system not booting because of
> > sysvinit.
>
> That’s because init scripts are full of hacks to work around its
> deficiencies, thanks to tireless tuning work from the maintainers. And
> even with these hacks, you can always meet a condition (hardware
> combination, complex partitioning scheme, network configuration) for
> which it will not work, or - even worse - work randomly.
I'm sure systemd won't be free of problems either. So lets first work on
getting daemon packages to support systemd, and then see if the result is good
enough to switch to systemd by default.
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <g...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
