Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-20 05:19:03) > Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: >> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:16:37) >>> Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To >>> me this looks like a legitimate fork. >>> >>> Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to mean "at >>> least one not-systemd derived"? >> >> My concern is not systemd specifically - on the contrary I find it >> great if it brings more choice to Debian, which seems to be the >> status currently. >> >> My concern is also not the risk that Debian could be locked into >> "only two" or "only three" init systems - I believe we need not deal >> with that until the risk of such scenario eventually becomes >> realistic - if we then concider such scenario a concern. >> >> My concern now is to ensure that Debian supports more than a single >> init system. >> >> I sincerely hope that I made myself more clear this time, and that >> you found my response adequate and we can move on. > > Not really, I'm afraid (although you're of course free to move on). I > am still wondering, if Debian would support only uselessd and systemd, > would you consider that "more than one init system" or not? And if > not, why not?
I don't know: I do know from our recent experience of bugs appearing and getting fixed too!) that "whoa, let's preserve more than one init system in Debian". Maybe an experience with systemd + uselessd will not make me react "whoa, let's preserve more than two init systems in Debian", or maybe even "whoa, let's preserve at least one conservative init system in Debian" - I don't know. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
