]] Guus Sliepen | 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.
The problem with this is you get even more combinatorial explosion and less testing, particularly for packages that have few users. | 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. (Ignoring the kFreeBSD side of things for a bit): Why? As others have pointed out, systemd uses sysvinit scripts just fine. | If you think your comparison is suitable, then are you suggesting we do | something as difficult as moving from .deb format to .rpm? It'd be like moving from .deb to a format supporting .deb and .rpm, not dropping the old support. Regards, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87sjpy4gki....@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
