Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Aug 10, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> In the case of OpenRC, it has the potential to be a drop-in replacement
>> for sysv-rc (note that it uses base sysvinit still underneath that).
> So do the other init systems.
> The point is what they can do which sysvinit (and openrc) cannot.
You may have noticed that despite your incessant attempts to shout this
effort down, they went ahead and did it anyway.
Now that they've done the bulk of the effort, do you really expect them
to simply discard their work because you tell them to?
You might not like it, and you might even think they've been wasting
their time, but unless you can come up with a demonstration that
allowing this in will cause actual damage to the distribution you might
as well shut up.
As a largely disinterested observer, it seems that this might at least
provide a route to being able to provide enough support of the the
features that make the systemd/upstart folk dizzy with excitement, such
that non-linux platforms don't end up acting as a blocker for one of
those two to be adopted for linux, while OpenRC covers non-linux enough
so that init-agnostic start-up scripts can work anywhere.
If it only results in some more effort being applied to coming up with
that agnostic solution, then the rest of us can then get on with life
while the upstart and systemd folk take chunks out of one another for a
decade or so.
So, please tell us about the corrosive harm that you think is going to
result from this being allowed into the archive (in detail, with
references), or let them get on with it.
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/
|-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND