Bug#727708: package to change init systems

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Yes.  I would still prefer to see something like that.  I don't
> > remember exactly what the objections were and I'm very very tired now
> > but perhaps something like
> >
> >   We expect that Debian will continue to support mkultiple init
> >   systems for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > would be acceptable to everyone ?  I can't remember what the
> > objections were to my previous wording.  Or some other phrasing.
> 
> I've been trying to avoid making decisions now about what happens beyond
> jessie, but I would not object to including that text since I think it's
> true for at least some values of "support".

This discussion started since the

   Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
   a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
   tolerable.

in the L rider was interpreted by Russ as being valid forever, while
I read the whole resolution text (including this part) as only being 
valid for jessie.

Does a TC vote for this strict rule in the L rider make it binding only 
for jessie, or forever?
This is the important question here.

I am pretty sure the TC will anyway have to debate and decide on the 
init system(s) for jessie+1 in 1-2 years.

Note that if a GR would re-affirm the TC decision, then a new GR might
be needed to change a T/L rider decision if it is not limted to jessie.

> Bdale

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