Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > For comparison purposes, the *total* burden, from my upstream > perspective, of the two options was:
> * systemd: 14 lines (8 lines of code, 6 lines of build system) > * upstart: 12 lines (6 lines of code, 6 lines of documentation) > Since upstart synchronization required adding a new command-line flag, > it needed documentation of the new flag; systemd's synchronization > support didn't strike me as something that required documentation beyond > a note that it was supported. > Both of these are effectively trivial, and my current intention is to > add support for both protocols to the daemons that I maintain. Sorry, this was misleading: that was for the synchronization protocol. For socket activation, the total upstream burden for systemd was 12 lines of code (10 for the implementation and 2 to stub out a call if the necessary library wasn't available), assuming the build system support already added for the synchronization protocol was in place. I was unable to add socket activation support for upstart due to its lack of support for SOCK_DGRAM sockets. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
