Martin Pitt <mp...@debian.org> writes:
> I think that would be the worst possible (non-)decision that could be
> made. We already have more than enough bugs in Debian; officially
> trying to support 3 init systems is going to end up being a
> combinatorial explosion of testing and bugs, for no obvious benefit
> for the user ("pick your set of bugs").
One of the init systems is the *default*, and that's likely the only one
that will see testing and quality that is up to debian's standards.
Users should not select a non-default init system lightly. I think it's
going to be a bit like using the "non-default" kfreebsd or hurd kernel.
It's not for the average user who wants as much software as possible to
work as well as possible. It's for the user who is curious, or really
likes to use or hack that piece of software, or maybe hopes that it's
going to replace the current default component sometime in the future.
Then there are differences of course. On one hand, I imagine both
upstart and systemd are more mature than the hurd, and they definitely
have more users. And on the other hand, the needed porting to get a
random daemon to work well with a new init system might be slightly more
work than for porting the same random daemon to work on the hurd or
kfreebsd.
(And it's going to be at least 4 init systems, not 3, right? systemd,
upstart, sysv and openrc. With support for sysv possibly dropped after a
few release cycles).
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
