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

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

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. 


Attachment: pgpMVaVB4lPxq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: