Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > 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". I prefer Don's approach to thinking about this: I still don't think the last sentence of this paragraph completely handles the cases where someone can legitimately depend on a specific init system or specific init system interface. If we're supporting multiple init systems, then software which doesn't support multiple init systems which could feasibly do so is buggy. If patches to fix it appear and aren't applied, then people can appeal to the CTTE. It's not necessary or feasible for us to anticipate every single technical wrinkle and delay making a decision to do so. Thus, I believe the only acceptable option for Q2 from among your set is "requiring a specific init is permitted even if it is not the default one". But I would prefer to vote a ballot that doesn't mention dependencies at all. Bdale
Attachment:
pgpU0u62v2hh0.pgp
Description: PGP signature