On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 06:14:30PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > (Josh, is there some reason why you replied to the TC list directly > rather than the bug report ? You should send your messages to the bug > so they are filed, displayed and archived there. Thanks.)
I don't subscribe to debian-ctte@; I read it via the list archives. I've been replying using the "Reply to:" links at the bottom of mails, and then manually copying and quoting the responses. Those links reply to debian-c...@lists.debian.org, so unless I manually edit the destination (which I've done in a few cases where the destination was a bug report), it ends up going to the list. It'd be nice if those links paid attention to the To/Cc/Reply-To/Mail-Followup-To addresses, and otherwise acted like hitting the reply key in a mail client. I'd also add my voice to the set of people who have requested mbox archives in the past. > Josh Triplett writes ("Re: Bug#727708: init system discussion status"): > > Clint Adams wrote: > > > As loath as I am to participate in this discussion, I have to ask > > > if your intent is to suddenly outlaw all the packages which depend > > > on runit. > > Thanks for your intervention which is helpful. > > > I think it'd be appropriate to allow dependencies on runit (or another > > package that contains an implementation of /sbin/init), as long as > > either the depending package doesn't depend on having /sbin/init be that > > init (which holds true for runit), > > Right. > > > *or* if an alternative package exists to integrate with the default > > init system. For instance, git-daemon-run versus > > git-daemon-sysvinit versus a hypothetical git-daemon-systemd, > > Personally I think this is a pretty nasty way for the git packages to > have done things, although I understand why. But, regardless, I think > it's certainly fine from the init system compatibility point of view. I'm not a big fan of its long insistence on runit (git-daemon-sysvinit came much later), but I actually rather like the idea of putting init scripts and systemdiwde configuration in a separate package from daemons. In the case of git, it makes sense because the daemon lives in the "git" package, which shouldn't start a daemon. More generally, though, I wish more packages were split the way Apache is, with one package containing the daemon and all supporting files, and the other package containing the configuration for a systemwide daemon. I've found that particularly useful on many occasions. > > ... (Note that the latter would work better if upstart stopped > > conflicting with sysvinit, similar to how systemd can be installed > > without being init.) > > There does seem to need to be some work there. As I understand it, conflicting with sysvinit and not offering a package that can be installed in parallel with it was an intentional decision on the upstart maintainers' parts. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org