Michael Gilbert <mgilb...@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert writes:
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>>> So all deferring for another cycle does is leave Debian with annoying
>>>> cumbersome init scripts and unsolvable race conditions for another cycle.
>>>
>>> Which have already been solved for a long time now.
>>
>> No, they haven't. Try eg. various combinations of layering md-raid,
>> cryptsetup, lvm and btrfs on top of each other. If you feel particularly
>> adventurous, add some storage devices that take minutes to initialize or
>> need a working network connection (disclaimer: I haven't personally
>> tried the latter, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to make things work
>> better).
>
> For use cases like this where sysvinit is insufficient, the user can
> use init-select or whatever to use a newer init that does handle this
> better.
You are not making sense to me. You claimed that race conditions and
bugs in sysvinit have been solved. They have not been solved. So now you
are claiming that *because better init systems exist*, these bugs do not
matter and we should stick with sysvinit?
End of discussion for me here.
Best,
Nikolaus
--
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
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/87eh3ia5x5....@rath.org
