Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian [and 1 more messages]
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> The lowest-impact library dependency is still pretty large, from the
> perspective of the typical daemon upstream. Plenty of projects don't
> use autoconf. Some aren't written in C at all and would need bindings
> (or to reimplement the base logic natively).
I still don't entirely agree with this, although the point about language
bindings is certainly valid. (I'm tempted to just fix that problem for
Perl, since no one seems to have to date, but that supports your point.)
But I don't think there's a need to debate it, since as noted below I'm
not sure it really matters.
> But I think it doesn't make sense to treat it as a mark against upstart,
> for Debian's purposes, that upstart started from the more conservative
> end of the spectrum on this question while systemd was more ambitious.
> If anything, the long time it's taken Debian to even seriously consider
> the question of moving to upstart shows that by at least one relevant
> measure, even upstart was being too aggressive. :/
Note that I didn't include anything about the notification policy in my
writeup. That's because after further consideration, I agreed: I don't
consider this a notable advantage to either system.
(I probably owe everyone an additional followup message listing some of
the things that I don't think are differentiators, in part to call out
what I consider exemplary support from multiple different projects over
the course of this evaluation. I'm very grateful to both the upstart and
the systemd teams for the work they've already done on integration and
their responses during my discovery process.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: