On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 23:45:33 +0200
Jaromil <jaromil@???> wrote:

> dear Steve,
>
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > My opinion is quite the opposite. OpenRC is, in my opinion, pretty
> > similar to sysvinit. Both use "init scripts" that can grow huge and
> > unfathomable.
>
> OK, you make some quite reasonable points and I'm half convinced now,
> by the rationale of changing things for better if we really change
> them. I'm curious to hear Roger Leigh's opinion on this and also that
> of other Devuan developers.
>
> however this is all abstract speculation now. I'm not even sure we'll
> make such a big change in testing. most people and organizations
> switching to Devuan today (me included) are in need of a system that
> does not change their workflow arbitrarily.

Yes. I would recommend against *any* init change in the foreseeable
future. All I'm saying is that *if and when* we change, the change
should be to something very different from sysvinit. Something like
Epoch, Runit, or s6.

Interesting, Epoch, Runit and s6 can all be fairly easily installed by
a knowledgeable Linux user, direct from "upstream" code, with no
intervention from the package manager.

Epoch, Runit and s6 have one thing in common: Each was written and
maintained by one person, so they could not afford the complexification
that bigger projects often burden their software with. This is why
they're so easily installable by a mere mortal.

But like you say, this decision is a long, looooooong way off.

SteveT

Steve Litt
May 2016 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21