sysvinit VS initng VS upstart VS launchd (Was: Future New Init for FC7?)

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:57:43AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> At the same time, I don't want to stamp the Fedora name on something that has 
> 6 half working init system choices, but none that work fully.  It's the same 

That's not what I am saying here. I am personnally rather retrograde and
like to keep old stuff that work. I am all for a rock solid, well tested 
init system used as a default.

> Now, I'm all for seeing development happen and initiatives.  You can create a 
> secondary repo around trying out a new init system.  I just don't want to see 
> them clutter up the main repos that every user gets access to.

That, however seems very wrong to me and, in my opinion, very different 
from the spirit of former fedora extras. Having exotic, in development, 
niche software in fedora is very important to foster rapid development
and innovation. The developpers should be cautious as to avoid letting
softwares that are too broken pass from the devel repo to the release,
but I think that we shouldn't fear from shipping broken software if
there is an interest among users, they are not the defaults, and they
are represented as being in development.

An example along those lines is gnash, which is horribly broken still
worth shipping in fedora.

--
Pat