Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie

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

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > I think there are the following three reasonable answers to Q1/Q2
> > taken together.
> >
> > i.   Q1: Multiple in >jessie
> >      Q2: Requiring specific init is forbidden
> >
> > ii.  Q1: Multiple in >jessie
> >      Q2: Requiring default init is permitted
> >
> > iii. Q1: Single in jessie+1
> >      Q2: Requiring default init is permitted
> 
> Why do you use 'specific init' in (1) but "default init" in (ii) and
> (iii)?  Please be consistent in the use of "specific init" for all three
> options.  

I think it doesn't make sense to allow people to require a non-default
init.  If you think it does then there are three possible answers to
Q2: "requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the
default one", "requiring the default init is OK but requiring another
is not" and "requiring a specific init is not OK".

> With that change, (ii) might well be my first choice among these three.

But I guess you disagree.

> As written, I don't see the point of having Q2 included in (iii) other
> than for completeness, as asserting that we'll only support one init
> system seems to make the question of whether anything depends on it
> explicitly irrelevant and/or redundant?

I was trying to determine the reasonable subset of the entire possible
matrix of answers.  Obviously I think the answer "single" to Q1
implies the "requiring the default init is OK" to Q2.

Ian.