Bug#727708: loose ends for init system decision

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#727708: loose ends for init system decision"):
> Ian Jackson:
> > So, firstly, I would say that all packages must, in jessie at least,
> > continue to support sysvinit.  Russ (from the other side of the
> > upstart/systemd fence) agrees.  Failure to support sysvinit would be
> > an RC bug.
> 
> I think it would be unwise to require upstart and systemd to continue to
> support sysvinit.  I'm not even sure what that would mean, in particular
> in the case of systemd-sysv whose sole purpose is to replace sysvinit.

I was speaking looaely.  I meant, still loosely speaking but rather
less so, all packages which contain daemons which are to be started by
the init system.

In my draft resolution I gave an even longer and more precise
definition which proves still yet to have edge cases people aren't
happy with.  But I hope you understand roughly what I'm getting at.

For the avoidance of doubt, I mean to include things like inetd and
apache and the system dbus and udev and the nameserver, but to exclude
things like systemd-sysv and upstart-socket-bridge.

The wording in my draft resolution is designed to tolerate (although
obviously not encourage) a hypothetical daemon whose bare bones
packaging doesn't arrange for the daemon to be started at all,
regardless of the init system in use.

Ian.