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

Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):
>> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>>    1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.
> I hereby propose and accept an amendment to add a new rubric paragraph
> 0, and I also propose and do NOT accept an amendment to delete
> paragraph 2, so as to result in the following proposal:
>  == both versions ==
>    0. We exercise our power to set policy, Constitution 6.1.1:

6.1.1 states "In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software
or documentation makes decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).".

So in this case the Policy editors should make the decision
initially. The ctte can then override them, but would require a 3:1
majority (unless the Policy editors defer the issue under 6.1.3).

>    1. Support for sysvinit is mandatory in jessie.

This is a "should" currently (Policy 9.3.2). Do you plan to change this
to a "must"?

Would git-daemon-run violate this? Note that git-daemon-run provides
sysvinit integration.

>  == version "multiple" only ==
>    2. Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
>       foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
>       and code remain healthy.  Nothing outside of an init system's
>       implementation may require a specific init system to be pid 1.

It's unclear if reduced functionality (or in the extreme case no
functionality) would satisfy this.

Would a gnome-session-systemd package that requires systemd violate
this (if gnome-session is also available)? If yes, what is the reason
for forbidding people from trying out new things?


Reply to: