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

Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:28:49PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):

> > Thus, for me, all of the "T" variants in Ian's latest draft
> > (<21226.41292.366504.997315@chiark.greenend.org.uk>) rank below FD.

> In my mail following the irc meeting I formally proposed the options
> you see listed in that message: {U,D,O,V}{T,F} and GR and FD.

> Are you satisfied that the wordings I propose there properly capture
> the essence of the disagreement ?  (You haven't said this explicitly,
> but I get the impression that you think they do.)

I believe they capture the essence of the disagreement as it's been framed
so far in this discussion.  However, I'm hoping that there is a compromise,
involving being more explicit about the interoperability expected between
packages so that they remain coinstallable on a Debian system and don't
fragment the archive, that is agreeable to all members of the TC.

As things stand, it seems that each set of dependency rider options will
have some members of the TC voting them below FD.  Which means I don't think
we've actually gotten to the bottom of this issue and identified the
consensus position, and I think we should be doing so.

Where would this ballot option rank vis-à-vis FD, for those TC members who
are opposed to the "loose coupling" option?

== dependencies rider version S (split-the-init) ==

   This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem; we
   continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.

   Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require a
   specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
   tolerable.  Software not part of an init system's implementation may
   require interfaces unrelated to service management that are provided as
   part of an init system, but the dependency on such interfaces must be
   declared in a way that allows the dependency to be satisfied by
   compatible implementations on other init systems.

   Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
   to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.

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

Reply to: