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

Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces

Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces"):
> * Colin said that it would be OK to depend on a stable interface such as
>   logind-208 provided that multiple implementations could exist.

Colin, I think you need to clarify this.  I think it matters very much
whether multiple implementations _do_ exist.

> * Ian said that this dependency would not be OK.
> I'd like the ballot options to clarify:
> 1) Whether these interface dependencies are acceptable

I don't have an opinion on the technical implementation details such
as dependencies.

> 2) Whether they are acceptable in cases where there is only one
> implementation.

My view on that is "no".  The key question for me is whether it is
actually possible to use a different init system.

> I'd request the TC consider the following question although I'm not sure
> going into this level of detail on the ballot is appropriate:

The TC ballot texts at the moment talk about "require", not about
dependencies.  So it doesn't matter whether a requirement is declared
as a dependency, and if so exactly what the form of that dependency
is.  Likewise it doesn't matter whether the dependency (if there is
one) is direct or indirect.

> 3) If we are using virtual packages to define interfaces, what should
> the dependency look like?  Would you want a raw virtual dependency such
> as gnome-shell depends on logind-208?  If so, isn't that kind of not how
> we currently recommend things?  Or a concrete dependency like
> systemd|logind-208?  If so, please make sure that if such interface
> dependencies are permitted your policy text actually permits the
> dependency.

I don't think the exact form of the dependency matters very much.  I'm
not sure I understand why you think the difference here is important.


Reply to: