Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028 ------- Additional Comments From che666@xxxxxxxxx 2008-01-21 15:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > (In reply to comment #15) > > > If we need more than one init system, we've failed. is the same true for mailservers? :=) > > > > Fedora as such shouldn't need it but we cannot discard the > > possibility that somebody steps up to keep on maintaining the > > old system. In that case the alternative would still be useful. > > It could also be used by initng, by the way, or the next init > > system, with early planning and testing. > > > > This defeats the whole purpose of the package. no it doesent because technically the issue is similar to postfix and sendmail. postfix was also designed as a drop in replacement and properly packaged it still doesent conflict. > > While this release is intended to simply swap in upstart in an unobtrusive > manner, taking full advantage of Upstart's power is going to involve many > changes to our current system. While packages wishing to install LSB/SysV > scripts will still work, there will eventually come a day when none of our > scripts use these mechanisms (i.e. when a default fedora install has an empty > /etc/init.d). This package provides compatibility with sysvinit, but an > alternative it is not. Upstart is going to allow us to build a very powerful and > robust init system, but it will be one which init-ng and sysv will likely not be > capable of driving. vice versa upstart cant use initng scripts so i am not sure if this is a real technical argument. > > By all means judge this package with the weight it demands. This is a very real > and very permanent change to a very central part of Fedora. I was trying to do that above because replaceing a mailserver couldnt make a system potentially break it to an extent that it doesent boot anymore. > > However, all of this gets off topic. The purpose of this bugzilla is to review > the practice of packaging upstart, not the principle. That we can save for Thursday. Agreed. Personally i consider a package that conflicts as a broken package by default unless it really Obsoletes: the older version for good ;). I am not sure if completly obsoleting is the way to go. > > > > (See also: "not about choice", (c) 2008 ajax.) > > > > I disagreed in the thread, I won't agree now... > > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review