Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian [and 1 more messages]"): > However I think it is relevant if we could get an patch integrated to > support the other protocol as well (means: not replacing the current > protocol). Which might be a good thing anyways as both protocols have > their own merits.
Yes, I agree that this is relevant. > > Also relevant is the response from systemd upstream to the request to > > support this protocol as an option. I found it unsatisfactory. > > You mean #732157 / https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833105 ? Yes. I agree with the comments from Vincent and Niklaus. For me, Zbigniew's response shows where this approach leads and I don't find it attractive. I found Lennart's comments tendentious and his complaint about an admin's potential use of SIGSTOP (during startup) unconvincing (and easily resolved by the use of (say) SIGTTOU instead). I don't see the merit in extensibility; or rather, I think that there is room in the world for a non-extensible but trivial protocol. (And there are other potential simple protocols which would be more extensible.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21172.61799.846887.351...@chiark.greenend.org.uk