Patrice Dumas wrote:
I may be wrong, but I don't think that any user will chose another init
system than the default init system unknowingly.
The problem is not that the user would unknowingly install a different
init system (They could install any packages without understanding it
but that is not a init system specific issue so we needn't discuss that
in this thread).
The problem is that users wouldn't know that the init system they are
installing wont work with several packages because these don't provide
the init scripts that work with the alternative init system they just
installed. If basic integration was not done, the alternative init
system would result in non-functional packages, crashes or worse non
booting systems.
But I don't think the users have expectations about non-default init
systems.
Why not? If I was a end user I would definitely expect any package in
Fedora to work with the rest of the packages in the repository properly.
I would expect the project to put in the necessary checks to ensure that
I get functional software.
If they have wrong expectations, don't do proper investigation
before changing such an important piece of fedora from the default,
change defaults without being knowledgable enough, I don't think these
are users we should care that much about. In any case they will
certainly be free riders, if not worse.
You are expecting end users to investigate all the potential issues
before they install a package. I think that's unreasonable. Maybe
expecting software to just work is idealistic but how is it ever free
riding?
Ok, we could have guidelines, like what I suggest above, but just saying
we use only one init system is wrong.
I didn't suggest that. Propose the guidelines first and get them
approved in place before getting alternative init systems into stable
branches. This has potential for a lot of mess otherwise. If it's just
for devel branch that's fine.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list