Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces"):
> Hmm, I am reading Ian as  against 3.

No, if there are multiple implementations then I am satisfied.  In
practice I don't think the problem of implementations only
non-overlapping subsets of init systems will arise.

> I request that TC members work with Ian on the wording of L he has just
> proposed to make his stance clear.  For my part if the TC were to adopt
> DL or UL as Ian just proposed I would not actually understand what
> policy we had adopted.

So, in of your next message you say:

Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces"):
> I'm sorry, I missed the message that was a direct reply to me.
> 
> I now understand Ian's position to mean that we must not require users
> to select a certain  init system for things to work.

Precisely.

> Sorry for the extra message and for reading out-of-order

Are you now happy that with the meaning of L is clear enough ?

Ian.