On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:21:14PM +0200, Trond Danielsen wrote: > > Ok, maybe it was a bad example. My point is that there is a > distinction between low level stuff such as kernels, init system and > other basic software, and applications such as wm's and mua's. There > is not problem to provide two or more different email clients, as > there affect each other very little. But something like the init > system would have an impact on all packages that depend on it. That is Indeed, it is more risky, but once more it is the user responsibility to install and activate those init systems. I really can't see why a different init system than the default shouldn't be shipped. Now an init system may not be of enough quality to enter in fedora, but if it is not the case I really can't see the issue. To come back at the example of gnash, at some point (because of some X bug) gnash crashed X almost systematically. Was it a reason not to provide it? We chosed to provide it in devel, add wordings of caution and cautiously add it to the releases when the nasty bug was solved. I can't see why other init systems shouldn't be treated like that. Also this conversation is somehow pointless, because new init systems can already enter fedora (there is already initng) and there is nothing in the guidelines preventing that, so... -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
