Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> In an ideal world, (i) would be enough [since it determines the
> behavior] and packagers could experiment
Just to be clear: I was reading from the point of view of what a
packager of an ordinary daemon needs to do. But the requirements on
init systems are important, too
Hi,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:19:12AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Maybe policy could allow (but discourage) packages that only support
>> some non-Sys-V init system as long as they include a dependency
>> indicating so?
>
> I don't think that's something that should
]] Steve Langasek
Hi Steve,
| Picking up this policy thread after a bit... Let's see if we can drive this
| to a conclusion now.
Sounds good.
| Right. I've looked around, and the better interface to use here is 'initctl
| version'; this command tries to query the running init daemon over the
Hi Jonathan,
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:19:12AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > + tasks at boot time. However, any package integrating with other
> > + init systems must also be backwards-compatible with
> > + sysvinit by providing a SysV-style init script
> > +
Hi Tollef,
Picking up this policy thread after a bit... Let's see if we can drive this
to a conclusion now.
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:11:40PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >From the proposed policy patch:
> + SysV init scripts for which
> +an equivalent upstart job is available
5 matches
Mail list logo
