On Wed, 02.06.10 15:27, Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by > > all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much > > confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been > > said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time > > and time again, there are other features that deserve attention. > > Quite. As a packager looking on from the sidelines, this discussion > leaves me wondering why I should expend my non-copious free time on > implementing upstart^H^H^Hsystemd^H^H^Hmaybe something else next year > init scripts. I'll just stick with the tested sysv ones, thanks. Well, while I do object to this kind of conservative thinking I am actually not opposed to the conclusion. i.e. it's fine if people just ship sysv in most cases. It's fine to have a slow transition. As long as the core packages have native scripts and even socket-based activation we already win a lot. But anyway, we probably should not continue the systemd discussion here, at this time. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
