On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 19:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Sysvinit has worked for over 20 years. Yes, it has warts, but the warts
> I therefore disagree in the strongest terms to make this be about the > position of sysvinit, except in so far as it is part of an abstract > group of "not systemd" options that we are trying to decide upon. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. My point was that what actual conflict there is, is in practice conflict between those who want to stay with sysvinit, and those who want to use systemd; and therefore the most practically important part of a resolution is how it would apply to sysvinit support. Your message first contains a defense of sysvinit, then a claim that "therefore" it should not be considered to be about sysvinit. I don't see how that "therefore" would logically follow.