Am Freitag, 26. September 2014, 14:51:01 schrieb Miles Fidelman: > John Hasler wrote: > > Miles Fidelman writes: > >> the technical committee selects takes a vote that essentially imposes > >> systemd on all of the upstream developers and packagers > > > > Where the hell do you get that from? > > Isn't that effectively what happened? > > If I'm an upstream developer, and I want my stuff to run on Debian, I > now have to include systemd init scripts (or the packagers do). > > Sure, it's "voluntary" - but not really.
Oh, the same way I could say: I am forced to write init scripts for a package. As I recently just did: And guess what: On writing a debianized variant of the atopacctd initscript where the upstream initscript actually caused lintian warnings I clearly learned about the limitations of it. Look at it [1] and tell me how you like that it unconditionally kills any process named atopacctd and the PIDFILE variable is not even used anywhere in the script. I´d have a clear word for that: crap. Now you can argue upstream needs to implement PID file handling for a double forking daemon. But I make is a case now that systemd needs *less* care of upstream, rather than more. It forces *less* on upstream than sysvinit for best practice. With systemd upstream doesn´t have to change the actual implementation of the daemon. And even without a service file it will just use the initscript anyway, with the same limitation then. [1] https://github.com/teamix/atop-debian/blob/master/debian/atopacct.init Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4908539.RHXGUvsFBi@merkaba
