On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Roel Deckers wrote:
> Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
> initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren't
abandoning init scripts (which they are going to) would be
a terrible waste of time.
> Yes, there are also technical reasons/strong arguments for systemd,
> but that's beside the point.
I disagree. The technical reasons are the entire point to
do or not do anything.
> And I'd like to remind those that feel strongly against systemd that
> you can still run initscripts and make a package for it, submit
> patches etc.
An init system isn't one of those things that just drops-in, tho'.
A package for an MTA (for example) will have to know how to start
itself up. You're left with the following options:
1. Rework the MTA to startup with your own method
2. Have the package maintainer somehow allow both such as...
3. Post to the AUR (or whatever) another version of the same
package that uses the alternate startup system.
The work snowballs from there. For every package that needs to
care about how it starts up, you have to change that, too. Yes
it still remains a possibility but people aren't going to do
that work. Upstream has explicitly stated that the effort isn't
worth _their_ time. Why would it be worth ours?
