systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

[Fulko Hew]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
> > I agree with one section of your argument:
> >  arguments which are just "I'm not used to this" are bad arguments.
> >
> > Many of the arguments presented in this  and other threads do not boil
> > down to that. If you believe them to do so, Jeff, then you're presenting
> > a straw man as I'm sure you're aware.
>
> I disagree this thread specifically boils down to familiarity
> argument.  Shall I break down the original post point by point?


... snip ...


>  - transparency of code due to shell use
>
> how is shell more transparent?  from my meager understanding of
> systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and
> logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the
> complexity of shell scripts. Are we not?
>

Up until now, my package is architecture independent.

>From what I understand, I will now have to provide some systemd
application that is coded in C?
If that is the case, I now have to create an RPM per-architecture
and loose my architecture independence.

True or false?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110719/c7246fd5/attachment.html