On Wed, 14.07.10 14:59, Matthias Clasen (mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 20:48 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Wed, 14.07.10 13:45, Matthias Clasen (mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > > To achieve what you want to do upstart would need to support something > > > > similar: make it possible to install it without insisting on the > > > > /sbin/init file name and related ones, and then add in those names via > > > > symlinks only by a an upstart-sysvinit package or so. But upstart > > > > doesn't support something like that. Sorry. > > > > > > Would alternatives work here ? > > > > Yes, the alternatives system would probably work. However, I think there > > are things where it is a good idea to use and where it isn't. And I > > think this case is one of the latter. If we go down the switchable init > > via symlinks route then i'd prefer if we did this via > > installing/removing packages, not via the alternatives system. > > I was trying to think of ways to reduce the 'what if it just stops > booting' fear involved in this transition, by finding a way to let > upstart and systemd temporarily coexist on a system. > > I don't think we want to have a switchable init system as a feature > beyond the initial transition phase. Well, if upstart would be installabale without necessarily taking posession of the /sbin/init binary name then we could make systemd the default and people could boot into upstart by passing init=/sbin/upstart or so. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
