Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
On 07/11/19 at 13:59 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Thanks for helping; resolving these sort of ambiguities are really
> appreciated.
>
> >>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
>
> Lucas> Hi,
> Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
> >> Packages should include service units or init scripts to start
> >> daemons and services. Packages may include support for alternate
> >> init systems besides systemd and may include alternatives for any
> >> systemd-specific interfaces they use. Maintainers use their
> >> normal procedures for deciding which patches to include.
>
> Lucas> I find this paragraph a bit hard to parse.
>
> Lucas> "Packages should include service units or init scripts to
> Lucas> start daemons and services."
>
> Lucas> My understanding is that we want packages to provide a way to
> Lucas> start daemons and services. Should this be read as:
>
> Lucas> Packages should include either service units or init
> Lucas> scripts to start daemons and services [= it works on
> Lucas> systemd].
>
> That sentence does not express a preference between init scripts and
> service units: as you point out both work on systemd.
>
> So I think we read the same so far.
>
>
> Lucas> When including service units, packages should also
> Lucas> include init scripts [= the baseline solution].
>
> Where do you get this?
> I find no textual support for this reading; it is certainly not my
> intent for choice 2 or 3
>
> That is, under choice 2 and 3, it's intended to be acceptable to provide
> a service unit and nothing else.
>
>
> Lucas> Or is it expected that the "may" in this option stronger than
> Lucas> the "may" in the last option, because of the preceding
> Lucas> paragraph?
>
> No, the difference intended between choice 2 and 3 is about how we
> handle technologies like elogind, or a mythical technology that parsed
> sysusers files, rather than how we handle starting daemons.
I must admit I haven't followed the elogind discussion (is there a
summary somewhere?). But how is is useful to support elogind if we say
"packages that include service units may also include init scripts",
thus making it OK for a system not to start services at boot if another
init system is in use?
What I'm concerned about is that the proposed GR is conflating two
different questions that are not completely orthogonal, but quite
orthogonal:
- whether init scripts must/should/may be included when there's already
a service unit
- whether exploring elogind support should be supported by Debian
Maybe it might be better to unfold the possible combinations that make
sense in the list of options.
Lucas
Reply to: