]] Colin Watson > As I explain in the bug [1], I think that the facilities provided by > binfmt-support are objectively superior; and even if they were broadly > equivalent, I'd still question the utility of converting packages from > an interface that's been well-established in Debian for over ten years. > > What is the systemd maintainers' position on this bug? I bring it up > here mainly because it's an interesting example of integration. Tollef > said during the committee's last meeting on IRC that he hadn't thought > much about binfmt before, so perhaps this is just a loose end.
binfmt-support is, AFAIK, only used in Debian and derivatives and in general, I think having tools that are used across the ecosystem is more valuable than having tools that are only used for parts of the ecosystem. In this particular case, as you write, I hadn't really given it any consideration before, but what I think would make sense is to extend systemd to support the same interface as binfmt-support and then people who don't use systemd can use binfmt-support and those who use systemd (on Debian or elsewhere) can use systemd-binfmt. I'm guessing the file format of binfmt-support is stable and unlikely to change substantially in the future. This is the longer-term view. Short term, if there's any harm in having both enabled, having binfmt-support disable systemd-binfmtd (by masking it) would be fine. Does this sound like a reasonable plan, or do you have a preference to move in another direction? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/m2ioucaw7c....@rahvafeir.err.no
