On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:23:11AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes: > > 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. > I agree with this; I don't think we should try to force developers into > significant work to satisfy an init system constraint as that may > prevent or delay important fixes and improvements from entering the > repository. > Of course, nothing would prevent someone else from fixing these kinds of > bugs and having those fixes get merged into the package, potentially > invoking §6.1.4 to have the tech-ctte resolve any conflict as needed. > However, I'd anticipate that most package developers would readily > accept fixes that made their packages work for more people. I'd like to believe this; however, the fact that bug #726763 is still open leads me to fear otherwise. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature