Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > I think reimplementing init-d-script in C is the wrong solution to > this bug. Certainly, if the only thing it is buying is us an ability > to manipulate $0. I infer from Dmitry's closing of #913247 which > requests init-d-script in C, that he also doesn't like that idea. > > So I think both Dmitry and I are in agreement that the right solution > here is the first of Dmitry's two bullet points above. Ie, the > sysvinit maintainers are of the opinion that this should be fixed by > amending 40-systemd, which is part of the systemd package. > > I'm therefore reassigning this bug. Benda, if you disagree; or, > Dmitry, if I have misunderstood your view: please do say.
I agree with Ian and Dmitry, and have no objections to this decision. Thank you to all the parties coming together to fix this. Yours, Benda
