Hi Guillem, On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem > to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their > solutions within Debian (or, with the exception of upstart, even > updating the policy manual) before this binding ruling was sought.
Setting aside the question of whether the TC should take this decision (which there's no point in discussing, as it's clearly your right to bring a GR if you disagree on this), can I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that not much energy has been expended on upstart in Debian? I've actually spent quite a lot of time and energy on getting upstart, and other base system packages, into a state that users should be able to switch from sysvinit to upstart without regressions. That means getting the ifupdown integration in place, making sure lvm and network filesystems work at boot, ensuring transparent handling of startpar dependencies on scripts that are shadowed by native upstart jobs, etc. It does *not* mean doing very much work on pushing native upstart jobs to maintainers of leaf packages; that should be secondary to getting a complete and correct base into Debian. But we certainly are at the point today where such jobs can be implemented more widely in packages. If you have a different standard for "seeking wide deployment", I'm interested to know what it is. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
