On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:28 -0400 Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful > > administrative features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it > > has been around in our repositories for some time and that it could be > > considered stable enough for production use, I would suggest to replace > > iniscript by systemd once the 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we > > will avoid duplicating our efforts on two init systems. > > > > Any objections to start the migration process ? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of > those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't > order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but > I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an > unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is > systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for > several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC? One advantage of systemd which people seem to overlook is its suspend support, bypassing pm-utils. The latter is broken, has a looooong list of open bugs and looks unmaintained. So +1 from me. > > before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have > been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should > revisit them. Well, arch-general is a treasure troff... if you can search through 1000+ posts on the subject. > > Calvin -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
