On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote: > > I'm hoping that phase 3 can be avoided entirely. The upgrade/conversion > > path (at least for upstream packages) will be firefly -> infernalis; I'm > > don't think it will be that useful to build infernalis packages that do > > sysvinit for systemd distros. (Maybe this situation gets more > > complicated if we backport this transition to hammer or downstream does > > the same, but even then the transition will be an upgrade one.) > > Agreed, > > <snip/> > > > Also, I think we should do 1 and 2 basically at the same time. I don't > > think it's worth spending any effort trying to make things behave with > > just 1 (and not 2). > > > > Am I talking sense? I can never tell with this stuff. :) > > > > sage > > I think you speak sense, > > If I underwstand right you favor the user interface as: > > --with-init=systemd > --with-init=sysv > --with-init=upstart > --with-init=bsd > > This is wiser when you start adding up all the possible init systems > that can exist. Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
