| |||||||||||||
Remarks about the benchmarkRemarks about the benchmarkPosted Dec 3, 2012 19:14 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)In reply to: Remarks about the benchmark by JanC_ Parent article: Langasek: Upstart in Debian
The point is: once you add support for sysvinit to a package that runs on both kernels (which you have to do anyway, as Debian kFreeBSD requires it), you have already done the work to support two init systems, and there is no point in *removing* it again. Good point, but I think you're missing something :) If sysvinit is only supported on kFreeBSD, that allows you to use all kinds of FreeBSD craziness in your init scripts, such as jails or whatever else the FreeBSD kernel has to offer. It's like systemd's use of cgroups and whatnot, just the other way around. Of course it's possible to check inside the init scripts what kernel you're running on, but this again increases complexity and need for testing, so the question is, why bother, when there's a better Linux alternative available anyway? Also, you didn't address my other point: if it were forbidden to add alternative init systems to Debian (and/or other distros), then right now systemd or upstart would likely not be in Debian at all. Why do you think that? Choices like these aren't set in stone. They can be revised when a better alternative comes along, just like Fedora dropped upstart when systemd showed up.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||