On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 21:37 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> For those who think that sysvinit is good enough, and that the problems
> for which systemd provides a solution are not problems to begin with,
> there is nothing wrong with the premise of "try to keep sysvinit at 2014
> levels indefinitel
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"
On Sun, 2019-12-01 at 18:43 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Uoti" == Uoti Urpala writes:
>
> Uoti> IMO encouragement for supporting alternative systems could be
> Uoti> reasonable, but only for actual new innovation; maintainers
>
Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> However, as with any piece of software, systemd doesn't and won't ever cover
> all use cases. It should be possible for people to use other init it they
> choose so, for whatever reason. How well those would work should depend only
> on
> the effort of those interested in
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:32:36PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If you were literally beating people with a stick for not testing their
> > packages with other init systems, that would certainly be compulsion, no?
> > Using policy and RC bugs as a metaphorical stick to be
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 22:25 +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 22 October 2014 20:14, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> >> > Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> > Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
> > > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
> > > uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
> > > by h
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 00:42 +, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2014 11:57 PM, "Uoti Urpala"
> wrote:
> > If systemd "hegemony" becomes a problem, there is a much better
> > open-source answer: fork systemd.
>
> By saying this, you have outlined the f
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > So if someone packages a new init system that is not compatible with
> > existing init scripts (e.g. if it does not support /etc/init.d/* as a
> > fallback), then it won't be able to s
9 matches
Mail list logo
