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

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

Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> >   Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
> >> >   pid 1 ?
> >>   Q2a: Is it OK for packages providing init systems to provide other
> >> APIs beyond just the minimum needed for starting/stopping services?
> > We might disagree on the extent, perhaps, but I doubt anyone on the
> > committee would vote against this in its general form;

This just goes to show how the exact form of words used can be
confusing or misleading.

> So looking at the votes today, I would have said that both Ian and
> Andi's original votes are against this (ranking the options which
> allow specifying a dependency on a specific init below further
> discussion), and probably Steve's does too, although I assume that's
> more an objection against the wording.
> At least, the impact seems like it is:
>  - init systems can provide whatever extra APIs they like
>  - other packages can only use extra APIs if they have a dependency on
> the providing package
>  - packages may not depend on specific init systems
>  * therefore packages cannot use the extra APIs

(In the L options:) Yes, packages which aren't part of the init system
aren't allowed to depend on those extra APIs.

But packages which _are_ part of the init system are so allowed.
(Think, for example, management guis or addons for a particular init
system.)  Answering "no" to the question Q2a above would have
forbidden that.


Reply to: