On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is
> > a
> No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
> files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
> boot
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot infrastructure: mounting local/remote bl
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 20:40, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this
> is a good thing. (Or maybe it's not, but supporting just one would definitly
> be our worst choice at this time.)
As a maintainer of several packages (~10) that provide
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
Yo, Holger!
> On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
> > *anyone* wants to get into.
>
> are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*?
Hi,
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
> *anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I always assume there are
a few, but you make it sound like it is the majority ;-p
Ser
5 matches
Mail list logo
