One big problem about Richard Gooch's simpleinit is that it is functionally very different from the standard systme V init scripts. Specifically, he always assumes that runlevel n+1 is always a superset of runlevel n, and that in order to get to runlevel n+1, you must first start up all of the services at runlevel n.
Runlevel 6 has been used for "reboot" since time immemorial, and in fact is documented in Debian Policy as such. Simpleinit can't support this. > * The /etc/init.d/ scripts would need to add "need otherscript" (and > sometimes "provide something"). As I think it is a very bad idea to edit > these scripts in our post-install (and try to reedit them in > pre-remove)) one would have to file bugs agains packages with > /etc/init.d scripts. Will that be sucessfull? How cooperative will the > maintainers of these script be? And just adding "need otherscript" and "provide otherscript" will break compatibility on systems that don't use simpleinit, unless the system V initscript package is enhanced to provide no-op functions which provide "need" and "provide". > * Is there even interest in simpleinit by others than me? I would also > need someone to ask if I have problems with sysvinit or similar, and I > would like to know who thinks he is capable of helping me? Are there > people that might help me when it comes to file bug against packages > with /etc/init.d scripts? Simpleinit is unfortunately completely incompatible with System V init. So at the very least, Debian Policy would have to be amended to support simpleinit, and I'm not really convinced it's really worth it for Debian to support two fundamentally different init script systems. Not only are the init scripts different, but the interface which is exported to the system administrator, and what can and can't be implemented using simpleinit, is completely different. For this reason, I consider simpleinit to be a failure and a mistake. With a little bit more work, for example, the traditional system V runlevels could be implemented, and the dependencies could have been implemented in a structured comment block, for full backwards compatibility. I've been told that SuSE's init scripts system does this, while also providing full automatic dynamic dependency management, ala simpleinit. I haven't had a chance to look at it, but everything I've heard about it makes it sound far better than simpleinit. - Ted