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

Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Where would this ballot option rank vis-à-vis FD, for those TC members
> who are opposed to the "loose coupling" option?

I'm planning on ranking everything above FD. However, I would rank this
particular option at the same level as L.
> == dependencies rider version S (split-the-init) ==


>    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.

I think requiring maintainers to implement this isn't tenable;
maintainers should accept technically viable patches which do this, and
if they do not, the CTTE can be invoked to resolve the problem.

But that said, if this is an option that needs to be on the ballot, we
should get it there quickly.

Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for
the people.
 -- Oscar Wilde

Reply to: