[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: sysvinit VS initng VS upstart VS launchd (Was: Future New Init for FC7?)

2007/4/5, Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 12:18:01PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> dragoran dragoran wrote:
> >     All the init systems should be parallel installable, so the choice is
> >     only for the default init system.
> >
> > if we go this route system-config-services should support multiple
> > backends....
> ...and many packages should contain multiple init scripts for those
> systems that dropped sysvinit compatibility (like initng).

Sure, if there is somebody wanting to go that route, let's not stop

actually i disagree.

as far as the current state goes its alot easier and more maintainable
if the scripts are in a central package.

if you disagree not a problem. but id really expect then that you are
going into the projects and fixing up the scripts individually then.

Generally i also think that we should have choice. Friendly
competition among systems is a healthy thing. Think if you have
multible systems with different scripts its unlikely upstream is going
to maintain all of them. Especially considering you want clean and
tidy scripts...

Rudolf Kastl

p.s. its always easy to say something has to happen if you are not
planning on doing it.


fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]