Upstart in Fedora Core?

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 18:49 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> A friend just posted me this link:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit
> 
I assume that he found that link in the recent DistroWatch Weekly
<http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060925> where it's reported
as the latest information about Fedora's plans.

If you check that page, you'll note the following:

 - It was written in June _2005_ as a result of the following mail to
   Fedora's development list:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-June/msg01390.html

 - The only update this year was in August, and that was to add a link
   to a document about upstart as a consideration

 - That upstart document is dated May 2006, somewhat before it was
   proposed for edgy, let alone implemented ;)

> Fedora Core is planning on creating an init replacement as well. Could
> someone from the Ubuntu project possibly be assigned to collaborate with
> them to get Ubuntu upstart into Fedora?
> 
I've been in contact with them on/off; momentum isn't strong at the
moment, but that's true for everyone else as well.  I get the feeling
that most other distros are waiting for a few different things:

 - various improvements (scheduled for edgy+1)

 - us to demonstrate it working in native mode (not just running
   sysv-rc)

 - clearer understanding about interaction with DBus and HAL

 - clearer understanding about interaction with desktop session
   management.


Obviously we've very much taken a "release early, release often"
approach with upstart -- so the version that's in edgy is actually very
early in the implementation plans.

My hope is that the significant public interest in upstart will persuade
people from other distributions (some of whom are subscribed to
upstart-devel) to join in and help lay out the design for it.

> I think it would be terrible if all the distributions had their own
> system for booting up- it would make distribution-neutral packages more
> difficult and would probably cause unnecessary overhead for many
> developers.
> 
Well, we have that situation *today*.  Every distribution has a
different system, and different policy.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20060925/6c814670/attachment.pgp