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

Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)



Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems 
> > alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same [bad] 
> > support) on maintainers and I feel it's too coercitive.
> 
> I don't interpret L as meaning that everything must support "all" init
> systems, certainly not "alike" (indeed the text of that option is
> explicit that it isn't necessarily alike).  Rather, I interpret it as
> saying that software-outside-init must be flexible enough to cope with
> that possibility, and degrade sensibly to a lowest common subset of init
> system features (IOW in practice, needs to keep working if sysvinit is
> pid 1).  Actual support for things beyond that minimum will require
> people who care about various init systems to step up and implement it.

Precisely.

Thanks,
Ian.


Reply to: