On 13/01/14 20:57, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: >> I'm coming round to the view that we should be planning to support >> multiple systems indefinitely. > > This has been my opinion all along. Various assertions that it's > somehow just too hard really haven't swayed me. The tricky bit, I > think, is to define just what "support" means in the context of > non-default init systems. IIRC, when kfreebsd became a release goal for squeeze, there was some policy that certain fixes were allowed to be handled as RC bugs, especially during the freeze. That allowed porters to potentially get something NMUd or unblocked if it was important to getting things working on that system. Could each proposed/approved init system for jessie be handled like this, generally? The respective teams would contribute the necessary work to make sure things work with that system. Maintainers would need to accommodate reasonable changes (mostly adding native init scripts) if they haven't already. That to me sounds enough like 'supporting' an init system. After committing to such goals, once the work really gets underway, any specific disagreements between teams over how to do things or what's reasonable, could be handled separately as they arise, and escalated to the ctte where necessary? It wouldn't matter to me which is ultimately chosen as the default in that case, if I only knew I wouldn't be wasting my time working on a particular init system. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain steven@pyro.eu.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature