3 ms·
Yes, they did. It they didn't break it was because those inits were compatible with sysvinit scripts. You lose that once you start porting your init scripts ove
by cycloptic 6y ago
Yes, they did. It they didn't break it was because those inits were compatible with sysvinit scripts. You lose that once you start porting your init scripts over to rc or whatever it is you replaced your init with, and now your system will break if you try to switch to something else.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoYour init scripts would have to be replaced, that's to be expected, and when multiple ordinary init systems are popular, packages could easily support more than one since an init script is generally only a few lines. I'm talking about all the things that now break not related to the normal function of init at all.
- cycloptic 6y agoIf those inits supported newer features, the init scripts would easily grow longer than a few lines and become incompatible once they use those features. I don't see how that's any different from what's going on here. If your complaint is that the scope of init systems has been expanded, I don't know what to tell you other than that it was inevitable. Systemd is not the first project to try and do this.