[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init daemon

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init daemon


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028





------- Additional Comments From che666 at gmail.com  2008-01-21 15:51 EST -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > If we need more than one init system, we've failed.

is the same true for mailservers? :=)

> > 
> > Fedora as such shouldn't need it but we cannot discard the
> > possibility that somebody steps up to keep on maintaining the 
> > old system. In that case the alternative would still be useful.
> > It could also be used by initng, by the way, or the next init
> > system, with early planning and testing.
> > 
> 
> This defeats the whole purpose of the package.

no it doesent because technically the issue is similar to postfix and sendmail.
postfix was also designed as a drop in replacement and properly packaged it
still doesent conflict.

> 
> While this release is intended to simply swap in upstart in an unobtrusive
> manner, taking full advantage of Upstart's power is going to involve many
> changes to our current system. While packages wishing to install LSB/SysV
> scripts will still work, there will eventually come a day when none of our
> scripts use these mechanisms (i.e. when a default fedora install has an empty
> /etc/init.d). This package provides compatibility with sysvinit, but an
> alternative it is not. Upstart is going to allow us to build a very powerful and
> robust init system, but it will be one which init-ng and sysv will likely not be
> capable of driving.

vice versa upstart cant use initng scripts so i am not sure if this is a real
technical argument.

> 
> By all means judge this package with the weight it demands. This is a very real
> and very permanent change to a very central part of Fedora.

I was trying to do that above because replaceing a mailserver couldnt make a
system potentially break it to an extent that it doesent boot anymore. 

> 
> However, all of this gets off topic. The purpose of this bugzilla is to review
> the practice of packaging upstart, not the principle. That we can save for
Thursday.

Agreed. Personally i consider a package that conflicts as a broken package by
default unless it really  Obsoletes: the older version for good ;). I am not
sure if completly obsoleting is the way to go.

> 
> > > (See also: "not about choice", (c) 2008 ajax.)
> > 
> > I disagreed in the thread, I won't agree now...
> 
> 



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.