I also fail to see how upstart or systemd add anything new while they obscure or delete previous
good work (by suggesting init(1) is to be deleted).
Is init not a timeless thing unworthy to plot the removal of ?
------------ why ----------------
Can they not figure out how init(1) works ? Does anything say init cannot start a daemon that
launches software as local sites need ?
Are these "daemon managers" ever going to do the work of replacing the work destroyed or claim is
now invalid ? (all manuals and softwares referring to init ?)
Does anyone really want insecure dbus sockets launching software and tunneling their host machine as
a pre-integrated feature they may not be aware of with "xml scripted security" ? I like dbus but
hate it if it's integrated where I cannot decide against possibly running.
Conflicts: startup-tasks, system-services, sysvinit, upstart-compat-sysv,
upstart-job
Anything else you wanna conflict (force remove) off the system before running ?
Can I take your order ?
What "upstart or systemd" apparently do is copy left free code to work against other code while
integrating a self demand into installation / upgrades for the same. Clearly what debian rules
spell out agains: software pre-required that breaks other software. (note debian uses as optional -
good)
Sorry if I wasn't more tactful. I did re-edit it to be more tactful ! :) But
enough for now.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f443249.1040...@cox.net
