[Fed-Devel] Re: SYSTEMD: Give us a option for upstart

Rudolf Kastl che666 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 11:06:37 UTC 2011

2011/6/14 Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com>:
> On 06/14/2011 03:15 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>> From experience... i prefer having two tools available atleast to do
>> every single job (especially when they exist) because then i have an
>> easy fallback if one fails. Having upstart installed on rawhide during
>> the f15 rawhide cycles was quite helpful to work around boot bugs on
>> the fly without having to debug stuff or ending up with a nonbooting
>> system (which makes it hard to dig up ml threads with workarounds, or
>> up or downgrading packages). As long as someone maintains it i see no
>> reason to exclude upstart completly from the repos.
> What do you about  glibc bugs?   Do you want to get them fixed or
> include alternatives?

its been many years since i have seen a glibc bug that makes my system
completly unbootable. i have had various issues during the last devel
cycle where my system wouldnt boot anymore and upstart was a good
shorttime fallback. having an alternative doesent mean that bugs
should be covered instead fixed. i never proposed this and i am not
sure why you start off like that on me.

>Having alternatives for each of the core
> components is a costly affair.  it isn't just about maintaining
> upstart.  It is also having to deal with two different type of init
> configuration scattered across the system, differences in handling many
> things including /etc/iniittab and /etc/fstab,  having to maintain init
> scripts or upstart configuration files in all the different packages in
> addition to the systemd unit files and testing them regularly in the
> development cycle to ensure that changes we make for systemd doesn't
> impact negatively on upstart and so on.  This is just silly.
>  We have to draw the line somewhere

I never proposed having alternatives for each of the core systems
either... There is already a viable alternative that works. inittab
contains atm exactly one line... the one with the default runlevel...
and /etc/fstab can be parsed differently if there are changes.

Also i do not understand the Argument with the unit files... they are
systemd related. upstart isnt affected. Since upstart isnt installed
by default anyways it also doesent matter for "critical path". Got a
hard time to follow your argumentation there. SystemV init scripts are
already present and work quite well aswell.

> This is just silly.

Not commenting that.

>  We have to draw the line somewhere

Draw your line ;)

kind regards,
Rudolf Kastl

More information about the devel mailing list