On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to > drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
While I'm not sure from your mail whether you meant to suggest otherwise, I do think that whatever we decide for jessie, we should continue the requirement of sysvinit compatibility for at least one release after we ship with some more modern init system. Also, since all alternative init implementations under consideration do support sysv-style init scripts, I think that whatever init system we (well, you, the TC) end up choosing, the requirement in policy should be that a package should ship either some init configuration for the default init system, or a sysv-style init script. In fact, I think we should continue to encourage the latter, in cases where it does make sense (e.g., when a given daemon doesn't have any init system specific features that could be enabled), since that will help our non-Linux ports without significantly impacting performance of the new init system. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- 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/20131028172214.ga11...@master.debian.org
