2026-05-25 23:05 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@antoniusmisfit@mstdn.social 2026-05-25 23:25
@rl_dane@polymaths.social @RootMoose@mastodon.bsd.cafe I remember that. They voted to basically say "we support exploration of alternative inits, but we're not gonna do that work".
-
@RootMoose@mastodon.bsd.cafe 2026-05-25 23:45
@rl_dane@polymaths.social "...systemd is not (merely) an init system. It's way, way more than that." This is the basic problem with systemd. It is trying to not only be an init but also be the userland of the target system. I'm not going to rant here with all the tired examples of why systemd sucks. It just does and no one will change my mind about that.
-
@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io 2026-05-26 07:14
@rl_dane@polymaths.social @RootMoose@mastodon.bsd.cafe My understanding of Debian policy is that systemd is the default, not mandatory, and that other init systems are possible (but support for them may be patchy). So I think if a package *assumes* systemd is present that’s a bug; obviously if it has a hard dependency that’s fine but it should say so, otherwise it shouldn’t assume more than ‘some init system’. In practice packages might not provide init scripts for other systems though.