Russ Allbery wrote: > Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes: > > > I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this > > discussion, apart from Canonical employees. > > For the record, I'm interested specifically in upstart because I think > that alignment with Ubuntu is a major win for Debian in terms of the > ecosystem and aiding our already extensive sharing of packages. > > I don't consider that benefit to be overwhelming, and I could be convinced > that systemd is the way to go even if it doesn't give us that if it's > sufficiently technically better. But I think it's an important thing to > keep in mind.
Alignment with Ubuntu could give short-term benefits. But using Upstart would practically ensure that the init systems used by major distributions would continue to differ. This is definitely not in the long-term interest of the Linux ecosystem as a whole. Fedora will not switch to a technically inferior system for the sake of compatibility with Debian. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any reasons why Ubuntu would need to keep its own init system, other than NIH and the short-term cost of switching. If it's determined that systemd is the best init system for Debian, then IMO the most appropriate way to ensure "alignment" would be to put pressure on Ubuntu to abandon Upstart. If Debian implements a well-tuned systemd setup then adopting that in Ubuntu should not be too difficult. To view this from another angle: the "major wins" of Debian-Ubuntu alignment apply equally much or more to Ubuntu. Why should you consider the Ubuntu decisions to be set in stone, and the Debian side obligated to bear the costs of compatibility by adapting to Ubuntu decisions, even if those decisions are considered suboptimal? -- 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/1333287018.24970.55.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
