[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: Init system resolution open questions

It turns out that we aren't quite ready.  Don and Andreas say they
will reply with their views by the end of the weekend.

In particular we aren't settled on the support/enforcement/
requirement/status of the various sytems on the various platforms.

AFAICT we are all agreed that:

* sysv support needs to remain mandatory (RC-buggy if missing) in

* Applications which aren't part of the init system must not require a
  particular init to be pid 1.  (So in particular a desktop
  environment may not require a particular pid 1.)

As I mentioned on IRC, I think we need to get some clear answers to
certain questions from everybody.

* For which init systems should there be a low nmu threshold for
  native support in packages ?

* Daemon package maintainers should accept reasonable patches for
  some set of init systems.  Which init systems ?

* What opinions do we state for jessie+1 - are we hoping for one or
  two systems (which two), or more, or are we not saying yet ?

* If systemd is the default on Linux, what opinions do we want to
  state, if any, re non-Linux ports at this stage ?

* What should be an RC bug in jessie ?

* What should be an RC bug in jessie+1 ?

I also think we need to answer:

* What level of dysfunction is OK if an application (or a desktop
  environment or whatever) isn't running on its preferred pid 1 ?

* Do we want to give any guidance about what a maintainer may consider
  an unreasonable native-init-system-support patch ?  Or to put it
  another way, do we intend to overrule a maintainer who declines to
  implement one (or any) non-forking startup protocol ?

Please reply by the end of the weekend.  It would be helpful if
everyone would reply again even if the answers ought to be obvious
from what you've said before.

I will try to transfer the results into draft(s) in git.


Reply to: