Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > This idea being discussed hasn't been announced anywhere. And, it's > extremely harmful to the support of anything non-systemd, while providing > very little if any benefit to systemd users as well. It also would cause > doubling of maintainer effort.
How would provide systemd service files be extremely harmful for anything non-systemd? Is providing sysvinit scripts extremely harmful for anything non-sysvinit? Was providing upstart jobs extremely harmful for anything non-upstart? Would providing runit jobs be extremely harmful for anything non-runit? > But, in the light of the ongoing GR, arguing would be a waste of time at > this moment. Thus, could you please put this change into abeyance, and > once the GR is finished, we'll discuss whether to withdraw (or even reverse, > it should be "should not"!), according to the GR's result. I assume you think that packages that provide sysvinit script *should* *not* ship OpenRC, runit or any other non-sysvinit support either? That would make any init system in Debian a wrapper around starting sysvinit script which seems a bit boring and blocking any innovation to me. Though I think it might be close to what runit or OpenRC support currently means in Debian. Ansgar
