Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.

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

Noah Meyerhans writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:35:12PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes.  I agree that it's vague.  I'm open to better and clearer
> > suggestions.  When I wrote this I was hoping that the policy process
> > would be able to refine the details but perhaps that's overoptimistic.
> 
> Might we be able define "degraded operation" in terms of BTS severities?
> Packages MUST NOT experience Severity:important or greater buggy
> behavior with alternate inits as pid 1, for example.

I suppose what I mean is that a problem which occurs due to "wrong"
init system is a real problem and should not be reduced in severity or
excused on the grounds that the particular init system is defined as
"required" (whether via a dependency or otherwise).

So if the degraded operation amounts to a missing feature (a bug of
wishlist severity), then that's a bug of wishlist severity (and might
be closed or tagged "wontfix").

If the degraded operation amounts to a plain bug (ie bug of normal
severity), then that's a bug of normal severity.  Packages with bugs,
even regressions, are of course routinely uploaded and released.
Whether to do so is a tradeoff which we leave the maintainer to
consider.

If the degraded operation amounts to a bug of RC severity, then that's
a bug of RC severity and the new version of the requiring package
should be blocked from transitioning to testing, or being released,
until the problem is fixed, or at least worked around so that it is no
longer RC.

Is this a suitable approach ?  If so then perhaps I should clarify my
proposed wording.

Ian.