On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz> wrote:
But above all, the "do-ocracy" theory is just a big lie. People wanting working sysvinit didn't have to _do_ anything: it was there and it worked so there was nothing to _do_ for it, just keep it working. And even if we wanted to keeping it working, we weren't allowed because from the very beginning there was a premise that keeping two boot systems is a waste of effort and that systemd is the only one worth having. Period, end of discussion, before it even started. Well, there was a lot of discussion but arguments of people thinking otherwise were never given serious chance. The people with power to decide were already determined to get rid of sysvinit, the only question really considered was how long will it take. And this has nothing to do with "do-ocracy".
Well, TBH, keeping the two boot systems in place, interoperable and easily switchable *was* indeed gonna be a lot of effort. It's the same as maintaining multi-distro packages. I've done a couple of those, and the subtle differences between the distros makes it really difficult, especially deb-based ones which have none of RPM's magic. With sysvinit vs systemd was the same. There was no magic in place to make it easier, and packages that had to interact with either would and had become a lot harder to maintain just because they had to handle two very different init systems. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org