SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:23:51 +0400, L wrote:

> I wont be really upset if I'll lose upstart, I can clean systemd as I need, but the idea is wrong. 
> Systemd is just a project, project which may tomorrow be changed, 

And Upstart is not?

> so why all others have to follow. 

You also follow in many other similar situations when components are
replaced or upgraded, and you either cannot avoid that, or perhaps
sometimes you simply haven't noticed. Even normal applications sometimes
change fundamentally between version 1.0 and 2.0, causing interruptions,
affecting or interchanging their user-base.

> It should be like selinux, which can be easily disabled "selinux=0".
> 
> That is what I think.

Not feasible. Where to start? Where to stop?

Only theoretically you can try to keep _everything_ alive (including but
not limited to forks, legacy software, abandonded APIs for previously
popular libs) and shipped with a distribution, but who will do all the
work (including the re-/testing)?