-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Wed Jun 2 19:39:16 UTC 2010
On Wed, 02.06.10 15:27, Tom Lane (tgl at redhat.com) wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth <mike at cchtml.com> writes:
> > If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> > all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> > confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
> > said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time
> > and time again, there are other features that deserve attention.
> Quite. As a packager looking on from the sidelines, this discussion
> leaves me wondering why I should expend my non-copious free time on
> implementing upstart^H^H^Hsystemd^H^H^Hmaybe something else next year
> init scripts. I'll just stick with the tested sysv ones, thanks.
Well, while I do object to this kind of conservative thinking I am
actually not opposed to the conclusion.
i.e. it's fine if people just ship sysv in most cases. It's fine to have
a slow transition. As long as the core packages have native scripts and
even socket-based activation we already win a lot.
But anyway, we probably should not continue the systemd discussion here,
at this time.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the devel