On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:47:15AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:58:50PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes: > > > > > But I don't see the problem, Debian has the choice. We're not going to > > > drop system V init anytime soon. Providing both systemd, upstart as well > > > as classical system V init leaves the up to the user and allows to > > > support non-Linux kernels. > > > > There's a serious drawback to supporting multiple init systems if one of > > the goals is to stop writing init scripts. The only common denominator is > > init scripts; upstart and systemd configuration files look entirely > > different, and would have to be maintained separately if we support both > > without using the init script compatibility support. > > Yes, there is absolutely a big cost to pay in supporting multiple > init systems. Choice is good when there's a benefit, but we should > not ignore the cost we pay. > > It would be good if we could generate init scripts from upstart > and/or systemd service files, to permit migration to newer systems > while still permitting the old system to be supported for the > interim. It would IMO be more productive to port systemd and/or > upstart to kFreeBSD/Hurd to make it possible to use the modern > systems on all arches. The attitude of the systemd upstream is > not encouraging here, however.
In sysv init scripts the daemon forks into the background. In upstrart and systemd it doesn't have to (or shouldn't). (not) forking requires a different command-line argument, normally. This leads to odd beasts such as safe_mysqld. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best tzaf...@debian.org | | friend -- 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/20120223021241.gf9...@pear.tzafrir.org.il
