Le lun 29/09/2003 à 19:19, Havoc Pennington a écrit : > On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 12:09, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Sure. But java is not really legacy and I don't see how we can ever get > > rid of the shell system adaptation layer for java apps (gcj may one day > > be an answer, but will all bytecode java apps be ever replaced by > > natively build ones ?). Even c++ apps like moz often start via a shell > > script. I'd felt better about this new system if it catered to the needs > > of shell wrappers (other than putting them in a legacy bin). > > You're just talking terminology I think. If it runs LSB init scripts, > maybe with extensions to do any additional stuff RH init scripts > currently allow, then what other catering do you want? > There's no way we'd ever be able to remove this support, so perhaps > "legacy" is the wrong word. "Classic" ;-) Well, as long as wrappers are supported normally you can call it whatever you want;). I was afraid legacy = bitrot haven. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=