On 02/18/2014 11:38 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le mardi, 18 février 2014, 22.55:32 Thomas Goirand a écrit : >> Once I consider OpenRC ready for it, would it be ok to just replace >> sysv-rc by OpenRC, and transform sysv-rc into a transitional package? >> What is the opinion of other DDs? Is there anyone which would like to >> keep the old featureless sysv-rc? > > I think we should focus on one init system change at a time. > > Having the good-old sysvinit setup still working in a satisfactory > manner is nice while preparing Jessie: that's what Wheezy has and > therefore has to be supported to upgrade to Jessie (think partial > upgrades, full-upgrade-not-rebooted-yet, etc etc). When testing crazy > stuff with systemd, I know I can always fallback to sysvinit if I broke > any .socket or .service unit I'm working on. It will be slower and feel > old, but would most certainly boot and provide me with comfortable ways > to debug. If that was changed to OpenRC, we'd exchange the sysvinit > safety net that all got to know in exchange for a brand new safety net > that we don't really know yet. > > Moving to OpenRC as the secondary init for Jessie looks like changing > the two wheels of a bike at the same time. I'd widely prefer to keep > sysvinit (as old it might feel) for Jessie, especially as transition > point from Wheezy and have these discussions again after Jessie is > released. > > That shouldn't stop you from providing the best OpenRC integration in > Debian, be it for the ports or in preparation for jessie+1. > > Cheers, > OdyX
Didier, what you are saying above make sense, I haven't really thought about a timeline though. If everyone agrees to have Jessie+1 as a target for sysv-rc deprecation, that's fine to me. Thomas -- 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/53038a6e.3010...@debian.org