On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 07:40:54PM +0200, Trond Danielsen wrote:
2007/4/8, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr>:
>On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:59:24PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> If you are advocating for alternative init systems I hope you take
>> sometime to do that.
>
>I am not essentially advocating for alternative init systems, but I am
>advocating for diversity and not having artificial entry barriers. I
>have already seen people saying only one dm, only one libc, and so on
>and so forth. This, in general, comes with a preference for desktop
>users and for things that just work, even if they are not easy to
>customize. I'd like that power users (like myself) also keep on use,
>contribute and feel that fedora is right and welcoming for them.
_Nobody_ has suggested that only one desktop environment or a single
window manager should be available in Fedora. Please stick to the
facts.
I didn't said wm, but dm (display manager). It is there:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00408...
For the one libc and no static linking against dietlibc, even if it
is more efficient I could find the thread too, if you really want to.
The point that you seem to be missing is the fact that there is a
huge
difference between shipping two window managers and two different init
systems. For each init system all packages that provide services
would have to maintain different start-up scripts for each init
system.
Right, I agree on that. But it doesn't change my point, although I agree
that there should be init files for the main services, especially the
system daemons before it goes in the stable releases.
I think it is better to test and benchmark the different init
systems
outside of the main repositories, and when the time is right, and
opinions backed by measured results, a new init system can be
introduced into Fedora.
I disagree. This adds a barrier for those who have the knowledge
and the will to package and use different init systems.
--
Pat