Bug#727708: Bits from linux.conf.au

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

Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#727708: Bits from linux.conf.au"):
> 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.  

Perhaps the resolution should have this stated prominently.

I think supporting an init system X (whether X is the default or not)
means that:

 - No non-init-system part of the system requires a particular 
   init system to be in use - so the user has a free choice.

 - When a non-default init system is in use, functionality and
   correctness is at least equivalent to that provided by sysvinit.

 - There may however be degraded functionality, for example UIs to
   init system Y != X (or to features provided only by system Y) may
   be missing or nonfunctional.

 - Functionality and correctness improvements contributed by people
   who care about init system X are accepted by the project into
   whatever are the appropriate packages for that support.

Or to put it another way: I think it should be made clear that we are
committed to supporting at least upstart and systemd.  Not just for
jessie, but into the foreseeable future, as long as their communities
remain healthy.

Ian.