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

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:08:19PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The former. So :
> > > 
> > >    Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
> > >    systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
> > >    patches to enable interoperation, even if it results in degraded
> > >    operation while running under the non-default init.
> >
> > Maybe I'm dense...
> > 
> > Scenario: Let's say that OpenRC is the new default init and in the
> > meanwhile, Gnome has gained a dependency on systemd. A patch to
> > support Upstart in Gnome is posted that partially breaks the
> > functionality under systemd.
> > 
> > By your wording, maintainers are encouraged to accept the patch.
> 
> No. This was precisely the ambiguity which Neil (correctly) pointed out.
> Simply put, patches which reduced existing functionality while running
> under the default init (say, systemd), would not be technically sound.
> 
> Instead, maintainers are encouraged to accept the patch even if it
> results in reduced functionality while running under the non-default
> init (say, upstart) in comparison to the default init (say, systemd).

That's a different case.

Zbigniew was talking about a package that has a dependency on a
*non*default init system.

And for that the first question is whether such a dependency on a 
*non*default init would be allowed at all.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed