On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:29:54 +0200 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > It is more and more obvious that modern software needs an event-based > init system. > > Pros: > - more features > - stable support for advanced boot/SAN environments > - being more similar to one of the other relevant distributions (RHEL > or Ubuntu) > - things like gnome become easier to package > > Cons: > - some work to do (how much depends on the choice and on the details. > but keeping sysvinit on life support is not free either)
Are either of the alternatives, at the versions currently in Debian testing, ready for the migration? (I have no idea, I'm wondering out loud). How long might the migration take? Are we talking Jessie or Jessie+1 here? Jessie+2? I can see some / many services being migrated but *all* ? Who is going to do all that work? Presumably, upstart has a headstart here with patches available in Ubuntu and an element of testing too. Does that make it a foregone conclusion simply due to manpower? > Since the init system strongly shapes many other packages, there has > to be only one and no other supported options. I disagree that this is achievable as a single switch. Backports spring to mind, security updates too will have to retain support for the init system in use in stable currently where that support existed in the package being backported at the version already in stable. Adding support for a different init system is not likely to get approval as a stable update. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
