On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:57 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 05 April 2007 07:38:26 Patrice Dumas wrote: > > I think this is a very wrong direction for fedora. Free software is > > about choice. And also being able to test innovative technologies. > > The default init system should be privileged, but all should be present, > > such that power users are able to test and use them. The directions that > > developers and packagers want to follow, how they spend their time is > > their business. If there are enough people interested in new init > > systems, lets have them. As a project we have to watch out the packaging > > quality, the integration in the distro and have good defaults. Our > > mandate should not to be in the way of initiatives. > > At the same time, I don't want to stamp the Fedora name on something that has > 6 half working init system choices, but none that work fully. It's the same > reason we don't ship 6 different kernel compiles (other than xen or no xen, > smp or no smp, these are because one won't work across all hardware > sets/systems). Certain things in the distro have to be rock solid, the init > system is one of those. > > Now, I'm all for seeing development happen and initiatives. You can create a > secondary repo around trying out a new init system. I just don't want to see > them clutter up the main repos that every user gets access to. Are we going to unmerge Extras and Core for F8? ;-) More seriously, I agree with Patrice that Fedora has a mandate to ship new and in-development things for users to try if they don't conflict with core components. Since init systems can be parallel installed, I think that they belong in the Fedora repository. One thing that Patrice isn't stressing, however, is that using a different initsystem usually requires writing new initscripts. So we need to have some policy about initscripts in Fedora. Something like: """ Packages that are to be started at system startup must provide an initscript for the default Fedora init system. Here are <link>details on writing an initscript</link> for SysVinit, our current default. In addition, other packagers may be interested in providing initscripts for alternate init systems. When this happens, the package should install the alternate init script [Guidance on how]. """ This is not a complete policy. How is a very big question. Subpackage? The same package that provides SysVinit? Who has responsibility for submitting the alternate init scripts to upstream? Should there be a SIG that helps add support for different init systems? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
