* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [131031 02:19]: > Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> writes: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:21:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Well, I've said this before, but I think it's worth reiterating. > >> Either upstart or systemd configurations are *radically better* than > >> init scripts on basically every axis. They're more robust, more > >> maintainable, easier for the local administrator to fix and revise, > >> better on package upgrades, support new capabilities, etc. > > > Can you please go in to more detail why you believe this was true? > > I think it's painfully obvious if you compare an init script to an upstart > or systemd configuration file for a simple daemon like, say, my lbcd > package.
For simple packages we would be far better of with a simple snippet that is either used by programms like systemd or upstart directly, or converted to a script by dh_initsnippet. One way or another we should as you write below go to an higher level language for init scripts. > Note that *Debian*, as a distribution, has a significant interest in > standardizing policy around how daemons are managed. It's therefore not a > bad thing for the distribution if we have an init system that handles that > policy, provided that it encodes the policy that we want. I realize that > the local administrator may have other goals, and they should have ways of > achieving them, but both systemd and upstart support running SysV init > scripts for those cases. Also I think we should make sure that the init system we use doesn't make it unnecessarily hard for local system administrators to change local defaults. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org